search for: initialize_pass

...hem? So, if you have a pass which isn't part of LLVM itself, you should prefer RegisterPass? Seems to make sense. Is there also an implicit assumption here that any RegisterPass pass is a leaf in the dependency graph? i.e. you couldn't use this to define your own Analysis? > > INITIALIZE_PASS is used for a pass that is a leaf in the dependency graph, whereas INITIALIZE_PASS_BEGIN is used for interior nodes. Almost all transform passes - with the exception of LoopSimplify and the like - do not have passes which require them. As a result, most transform passes are leaves in the depende...

I have seen INITIALIZE_PASS(LiveVariables, "livevars", "Live Variable Analysis", false, false); in the llvm/lib/codegen/LiveVariables.cpp, where LiveVariables is a subclass of MachineFunctionPass, and #define INITIALIZE_PASS(passName, arg, name, cfg, analysis) \ static RegisterPass<passName> passNa...

InstCombine says in its getAnalysisUsage that it preserves the CFG, but for the 4th argument in its INITIALIZE_PASS call, it says false, which I believe corresponds to whether it preserves the CFG. Is this a mistake, or is there deeper meaning here? InstructionCombining.cpp:73-82 char InstCombiner::ID = 0; INITIALIZE_PASS(InstCombiner, "instcombine", "Combine redundant instructio...

Does anyone know what the guidelines are supposed to be for properly initializing a pass? Looking around, we seem to have three styles of pass registration in use. INITIALIZE_PASS(...) INITIALIZE_PASS_BEGIN(...) INITIALIZE_PASS_DEPENDENCY(...) ... INITIALIZE_PASS_END(...) static RegisterPass<FooPass> X(...); (This is the one encouraged in the docs, but seemingly the least widely used in tree?) As far as I can tell, these often appear to work interchangeably. (At l...

Hi, Is the RegisterPass interface still supported, or do we have to use the INITIALIZE_PASS construct to register passes? Thanks, Arushi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20110516/98bc0ab0/attachment.html>

...using namespace llvm; namespace { class Foo : public ModulePass { public: static char ID; Foo() : ModulePass(ID) { initializeFooPass(*PassRegistry::getPassRegistry()); } bool runOnModule(Module& M) { M.dump(); return false; } }; } char Foo::ID = 0; INITIALIZE_PASS(Foo, "foo", "DUMP MODULE", false, false) I have the above pass written for llvm 2.9. When I load the module with opt, I get Unknown command line argument '-foo'. Am I missing some intialization step. Thanks, Arushi ~ On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 11:33 AM, Arushi Aggarwal...

Hi Michael, > InstCombine says in its getAnalysisUsage that it preserves the CFG, > but for the 4th argument in its INITIALIZE_PASS call, it says false, > which I believe corresponds to whether it preserves the CFG. that argument should be set to true if the pass only looks at the CFG, i.e. whatever it computes/does is only a function of the CFG, and doesn't otherwise depend on what particular instructions make up the f...

I try to use INITIALIZE_PASS instead of RegisterPass<> to register my pass, though I don't understand what's their difference and how it works because its documents doesn't exist. But it still doesn't work. Parts of my codes is as follows: in NVPTXTest.h namespace llvm { void initializeNVPTXTestPass(...

...e createXYZPass path. diff --git a/lib/Transforms/IPO/IPConstantPropagation.cpp b/lib/Transforms/IPO/IPConstantPropagation.cpp index b3ee499..8d70b98 100644 --- a/lib/Transforms/IPO/IPConstantPropagation.cpp +++ b/lib/Transforms/IPO/IPConstantPropagation.cpp @@ -253,7 +253,9 @@ char IPCP::ID = 0; INITIALIZE_PASS(IPCP, "ipconstprop", "Interprocedural constant propagation", false, false) -ModulePass *llvm::createIPConstantPropagationPass() { return new IPCP(); } +ModulePass *llvm::createIPConstantPropagationPass() { + llvm_unreachable("fnord"); +} bool IPC...

...es: opt: PassManager.cpp:638: void llvm::PMTopLevelManager::schedulePass(llvm::Pass*): Assertion `PI && "Expected required passes to be initialized"' failed. So I have to initialize the pass. But in my all other passes I did not any initialization and I don't want to use INITIALIZE_PASS since I have to recompile the llvm file that is keeping the pass registration... Is there a way to keep using static RegisterPass for a MachineFunctionPass ? I mention that if I change to FunctionPass, I have no problems and that is weird.. Thank you for any advice ! -------------- next part -----...

I write my pass in a mix way of NVPTXAllocaHoisting, NVPTXSplitBBatBar and transforms/Hello. The following is part of the codes: in NVPTXTargetMachine.cpp bool NVPTXPassConfig::addPreEmitPass() { addPass(createTest()); return false; } in NVPTXTest.h namespace llvm{

...: void > llvm::PMTopLevelManager::schedulePass(llvm::Pass*): Assertion `PI && > "Expected required passes to be initialized"' failed. > > > So I have to initialize the pass. But in my all other passes I did not any > initialization and I don't want to use INITIALIZE_PASS since I have to > recompile the llvm file that is keeping the pass registration... Is there a > way to keep using static RegisterPass for a MachineFunctionPass ? I mention > that if I change to FunctionPass, I have no problems and that is weird.. > > Thank you for any advice ! > &...

...n of the creator) should be done in Scalar.h; task 2(implementation of the creator) should be done the related mypass.cpp file; task 3(instantiation of the pass class) should be done in LinkAllPasses.h; task 4(registration of the pass into the PassRegistry) should be done by INITIALIZE_PASS class LiveVariables : public MachineFunctionPass is a case of point. For a built-into codegen/MachineCode pass, task 1 should be done in Passes.h; task 2 should be done in the related mypass.cpp file; task 3 should be done in LLVMTargetMachine.cpp task 4 should be d...

...at link against them), I'm going to be eliminating the RegisterPass class. They will be replaced with an initialization-function based system that I will detail in a future email. But, for now, what you need to know is that these classes are going away, and are being replaced with a new macro INITIALIZE_PASS(). I will be applying this change to LLVM HEAD shortly. You can update you code as follows: static RegisterPass<GVN> X("arg", "My Pass's Name", CFGOnly, IsAnalysis); becomes: INITIALIZE_PASS(GVN, "arg", "My Pass's Name", CFGOnly, IsAnalysi...

...I got the compile errors: Hello.cpp:20: error: expected identifier before string constant Hello.cpp:20: error: expected ',' or '...' before string constant Hello.cpp:20: error: expected constructor, destructor, or type conversion before ';' token which is the line "INITIALIZE_PASS(Hello, "Hello", "Hello World Pass", false, false);" in the code. Could any one help me with this? Thank you very much! Best, Daniel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20...

Dear all, I wrote a machine function pass to run with llc. But I get this error while building: "/home/erdem/llvm/lib/CodeGen/CodeGen.cpp:80: error: undefined reference to 'llvm::initializeNoopInserterPass(llvm::PassRegistry&)'" NoopInserter is the name of my pass. I already added this line to InitializePasses.h: "void

I had INITIALIZE_PASS_BEGIN and INITIALIZE_PASS_END macros. I replaced them with INITIALIZE_PASS but I get the same error. If I understand correctly, I need to modify Passes.h, InitializePasses.h, and Codegen.cpp files to register my pass, right? Another question is: Is it necessary to have the createNoopInserterPass fu...

Hi all, A question about statically linking a pass to clang instead of dynamically loading it at runtime. I am stumped on this bug for a while. I inserted a pass under lib/Transforms/mypass directory, registered it with INITIALIZE_PASS and defined createMyPass in the pass. Also I added file mypass.h in include/llvm/Transforms/ to expose the accessor functions that expose my passes. Entries are added in include/llvm/LinkAllPasses.h to force pass linking. The archive files of my passes are added to LINK_COMPONENTS in the Makefiles...

The pass is pretty rudimental (as the comment at the top of the file hints), and it seems LLVM already has IPSCCP (which should do a better job at interprocedural constant propagation). I'm also not entirely sure it's used anywhere. Is there any reason to keep it around? Thanks, -- Davide "There are no solved problems; there are only problems that are more or less solved" --

...f the creator) should be done in Scalar.h; task 2(implementation of the creator) should be done the related mypass.cpp file; task 3(instantiation of the pass class) should be done in LinkAllPasses.h; task 4(registration of the pass into the PassRegistry) should be done by INITIALIZE_PASS class LiveVariables : public MachineFunctionPass is a case of point. For a built-into codegen/MachineCode pass, task 1 should be done in Passes.h; task 2 should be done in the related mypass.cpp file; task 3 should be done in LLVMTargetMachine.cpp task 4 should...