search for: getanalysistoupdate

...he > information from that pass... what is the right way to do this? > Right now I am using getAnalysis to get the information from the non- > analysis (transformation) pass. It works, but now it sounds like > that's not correct usage.... One alternative approach is to use getAnalysisToUpdate() to access this info. This interface does not require you to register requirement using getAnalysisUsage(). getAnalysisToUpdate() will return null if the requested info is not available and users are expected to handle this. The reason why it is not a good idea to request transformation p...

...he > llvm part (since it applies to all source languages) and keep the > llvm-gcc part as a local hack. Ok, if you want to address this in LLVM, the place to start is to make the optimizers completely targetdata-independent. The best way to do this (IMO) is to change passes to use "getAnalysisToUpdate" instead of "getAnalysis/AddRequired" on TargetData. Then, change opt to only add targetdata to the passmgr if a target data string exists in the module. This would make the optimizers transparently take advantage of TD when available, but gracefully handle the cases when it...

Hi, How can I rerun an analysis pass in the middle of a function pass? In particular, my dominator set needs to be recomputed. It looks like I can manually edit the dominator set with getAnalysisToUpdate. If I could rerun the dominator set pass to get this info automatically, it would save me some time. Thanks.

I'd like to write a pass that does both: implements a code transformation *and *saves information that can be accessed by subsequent passes. If such a pass is not an Analysis pass and that therefore subsequent passes are not supposed to use getAnalysis() to extract the information from that pass... what is the right way to do this? Right now I am using getAnalysis to get the information from

>> I'm already working on this myself. Would you be interested in having >> this work contributed back to LLVM? > > If this were to better support target independent languages, it would > be very useful. If you're just trying to *reduce* the endianness > assumptions that leak through, I don't think it's a good approach. > There is just no way to solve

...ct the information from that pass... what is the right way to do this? > > > Right now I am using getAnalysis to get the information from the non-analysis (transformation) pass. It works, but now it sounds like that's not correct usage.... > > One alternative approach is to use getAnalysisToUpdate() to access this info. This interface does not require you to register requirement using getAnalysisUsage(). getAnalysisToUpdate() will return null if the requested info is not available and users are expected to handle this. > > The reason why it is not a good idea to request transformation...

...ncInfo); + SelectionDAGLowering SDL(DAG, TLI, getAnalysis<AliasAnalysis>(), FuncInfo); std::vector<SDOperand> UnorderedChains; @@ -4191,7 +4363,7 @@ assert(SwitchCases.empty() && "Cannot have jump table and lowered switch"); SelectionDAG SDAG(TLI, MF, getAnalysisToUpdate<MachineDebugInfo>()); CurDAG = &SDAG; - SelectionDAGLowering SDL(SDAG, TLI, FuncInfo); + SelectionDAGLowering SDL(SDAG, TLI, getAnalysis<AliasAnalysis>(), FuncInfo); MachineBasicBlock *RangeBB = BB; // Set the current basic block to the mbb we wish to insert the...