search for: extensionpointti

Hi Tobias, I am trying to move Polly later. LLVM provides some predefined ExtensionPointTy: EP_EarlyAsPossible, EP_ModuleOptimizerEarly, EP_LoopOptimizerEnd, EP_ScalarOptimizerLate, ... Currently Polly uses "EP_EarlyAsPossible" to run as early as possible. As what you suggested: >Instead of removing canonicalization passes, I believe we may want to >move

On 09/19/2013 04:46 PM, Star Tan wrote: > Hi Tobias, > > > I am trying to move Polly later. > > > LLVM provides some predefined ExtensionPointTy: > EP_EarlyAsPossible, > EP_ModuleOptimizerEarly, > EP_LoopOptimizerEnd, > EP_ScalarOptimizerLate, > ... > > > Currently Polly uses "EP_EarlyAsPossible" to run as early as

Hi all, I was porting my pass from LLVM 4.0 to 6.0 and I am getting a segmentation fault. I was able to obtain only the info below from GDB. I tried to debug with some printf and the runOnFunction runs correctly. Any idea/suggestion about what is going on? The source code of the pass is here: https://github.com/PRUNERS/sword/blob/master/lib/Sword.cpp Any help is much appreciated, Thanks!

On 09/17/2013 04:12 AM, Star Tan wrote: > Now, we come to more evaluations on http://188.40.87.11:8000/db_default/v4/nts/recent_activity Hi Star Tan, thanks for this very extensive analysis. The results look very interesting. As you found out, just removing some canonicalization passes will reduce compile time, but this reduction may in large part being due to Polly not being able to

Hi Tobias, At 2013-09-19 22:59:25,"Tobias Grosser" <tobias at grosser.es> wrote: >On 09/19/2013 04:46 PM, Star Tan wrote: >> Hi Tobias, >> >> >> I am trying to move Polly later. >> >> >> LLVM provides some predefined ExtensionPointTy: >> EP_EarlyAsPossible, >> EP_ModuleOptimizerEarly, >>

I ran into a similar problem a while ago; see https://reviews.llvm.org/D30107 and https://reviews.llvm.org/D33515 .  You get the unusual stack trace because it's trying to call a destructor in shared library which was already unloaded. I thought we had fixed that, but maybe not?  Looking again, it looks like the patch got reverted and I didn't notice. -Eli On 5/14/2018 10:18 PM,

This is the correct path to the pass: https://github.com/PRUNERS/sword/blob/master/lib/Transforms/Instrumentation/InstrumentParallel.cpp On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 10:06 PM, Simone Atzeni <simone.at at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > I was porting my pass from LLVM 4.0 to 6.0 and I am getting a segmentation > fault. > I was able to obtain only the info below from GDB. > >

Hi, We are upgrading an LLVM 4.0-based opt module to LLVM 5.0. After the upgrade our module works when built with an LLVM Debug build, but with an LLVM Release build we are encountering the following error. This happens after our passes have successfully run. I believe this has to do with the way our passes are registered. Would greatly appreciate some pointers, as to where to look. Program

It's working with trunk though. Do you think the patch will end up in 6.0.1? Thanks. Simone On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 11:18 AM, Friedman, Eli <efriedma at codeaurora.org> wrote: > I ran into a similar problem a while ago; see https://reviews.llvm.org/ > D30107 and https://reviews.llvm.org/D33515 . You get the unusual stack > trace because it's trying to call a destructor

Here is an update about moving Polly later. 1. Why does Polly generate incorrect code when we move Polly immediately after the loop rotating pass? It is mainly caused by a wrong polly merge block. When Polly detects a valid loop for Polyhedral transformations, it usually introduces a new basic block "polly.merge_new_and_old" after the original loop exit block. This new basic block

Dear lazydev, I'm writing an instrumentation pass that depends on AliasAnalysis. My getAnalysisUsage() looks as follows: 2453 void ThreadSanitizer::getAnalysisUsage(AnalysisUsage &AU) const { 2454 AU.addRequired<TargetData>(); 2455 AU.addRequired<AliasAnalysis>(); 2456 } and the pass initialization: 2668 char ThreadSanitizer::ID = 0; 2669

Hi Alexander, I had the same error: sincos: /home/marcusmae/rpmbuild/BUILD/llvm/lib/VMCore/PassManager.cpp:635: void llvm::PMTopLevelManager::schedulePass(llvm::Pass*): Assertion `PI && "Expected required passes to be initialized"' failed. The solution was to add: PassRegistry &Registry = *PassRegistry::getPassRegistry(); initializeCore(Registry);

Now, we come to more evaluations on http://188.40.87.11:8000/db_default/v4/nts/recent_activity I mainly care about the compile-time and execution time impact for the following cases: pBasic (run 45): clang -O3 -load LLVMPolly.so pNoGenSCEV (run 44): clang -O3 -load LLVMPolly.so -polly-codegen-scev -polly -polly-optimizer=none -polly-code-generator=none pNoGenSCEV_nocan (run 47): same option

On 9/18/2017 8:20 PM, Diptorup Deb via llvm-dev wrote: > Hi, > > We are upgrading an LLVM 4.0-based opt module to LLVM 5.0. After the > upgrade our module works when built with an LLVM Debug build, but > with an LLVM Release build we are encountering the following error. > > This happens after our passes have successfully run. I believe this > has to do with the way our