search for: passregistrationlisten

...91 24 clang 0x0000000100016cfb std::_Rb_tree<std::string, std::string, std::_Identity<std::string>, std::less<std::string>, std::allocator<std::string> >::_M_insert_unique(std::string const&) + 3723 25 clang 0x000000010000faa7 std::vector<llvm::PassRegistrationListener*, std::allocator<llvm::PassRegistrationListener*> >::_M_insert_aux(__gnu_cxx::__normal_iterator<llvm::PassRegistrationListener**, std::vector<llvm::PassRegistrationListener*, std::allocator<llvm::PassRegistrationListener*> > >, llvm::PassRegistrationListener* const&...

...ManagedStatic(void* (*)(), void (*)(void*)) const (ManagedStatic.cpp:47) ==19966== by 0x5D9B73E: llvm::ManagedStatic<llvm::PassRegistry>::operator*() (ManagedStatic.h:67) ==19966== by 0x5D997E1: llvm::PassRegistry::getPassRegistry() (PassRegistry.cpp:34) ==19966== by 0x5D86960: llvm::PassRegistrationListener::~PassRegistrationListener() (Pass.cpp:227) ==19966== by 0x5D86A39: llvm::PassNameParser::~PassNameParser() (Pass.cpp:237) ==19966== by 0x5D948A5: llvm::cl::list<llvm::PassInfo const*, bool, llvm::PassNameParser>::~list() (CommandLine.h:1010) ==19966== by 0x5D88E61: __tcf_2 (PassMa...

...nagedStaticBase::RegisterManagedStatic(void* (*)(), void (*)(void*)) const (ManagedStatic.cpp:50) ==26332== by 0xD3C372: llvm::ManagedStatic<llvm::sys::SmartMutex<true> >::operator*() (ManagedStatic.h:68) ==26332== by 0x1605FE2: llvm::PassRegistry::removeRegistrationListener(llvm::PassRegistrationListener*) (PassRegistry.cpp:195) ==26332== by 0x15F1FC5: llvm::PassRegistrationListener::~PassRegistrationListener() (Pass.cpp:211) ==26332== by 0x15F2074: llvm::PassNameParser::~PassNameParser() (Pass.cpp:221) ==26332== by 0x1604973: llvm::cl::list<llvm::PassInfo const*, bool, llvm::PassName...

...at i’ve gone for is that if a class already had an inline destructor then i left it alone and added an anchor method. Otherwise I added an out of line destructor. Now if I compile Instructions.cpp with -Wweak-vtable, the only warnings given are: ../include/llvm/PassSupport.h:226:8: warning: 'PassRegistrationListener' has no out-of-line virtual method definitions; its vtable will be emitted in every translation unit [-Wweak-vtables] struct PassRegistrationListener { ^ In file included from ../lib/IR/Instructions.cpp:16: In file included from ../lib/IR/LLVMContextImpl.h:19: In file included fr...

...PassRegistryImpl *Impl = static_cast<PassRegistryImpl*>(getImpl()); bool Inserted = Impl->PassInfoMap.insert(std::make_pair(PI.getTypeInfo(),&PI)).second; @@ -115,24 +116,22 @@ void PassRegistry::registerPass(const PassInfo &PI, bool ShouldFree) { for (std::vector<PassRegistrationListener*>::iterator I = Impl->Listeners.begin(), E = Impl->Listeners.end(); I != E; ++I) (*I)->passRegistered(&PI); - + if (ShouldFree) Impl->ToFree.push_back(&PI); } void PassRegistry::unregisterPass(const PassInfo &PI) { - sys::SmartScopedLock<true&g...

...a strong opinion which is best, especially as I don’t want to do anything too big for 3.7 at this point. Cheers, Pete > > - Dave > > > Now if I compile Instructions.cpp with -Wweak-vtable, the only warnings given are: > > ../include/llvm/PassSupport.h:226:8: warning: 'PassRegistrationListener' has no out-of-line virtual method definitions; > its vtable will be emitted in every translation unit [-Wweak-vtables] > struct PassRegistrationListener { > ^ > In file included from ../lib/IR/Instructions.cpp:16: > In file included from ../lib/IR/LLVMContextImpl....

On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 10:22 AM, Hans Wennborg via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 12:04 PM, David Chisnall via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > [Ooops, sent to the old list address by mistake] > > > > On 30 Jul 2015, at 21:04, tom at stellard.net wrote: > >> > >> For flags like

Right, I'm suggesting we keep llvm_shutdown() for users who want this control, but also destroy still-live ManagedStatic instances if llvm_shutdown() is not called. This helps in the case where there is not a clear time when llvm_shutdown() can be called, especially given that LLVM cannot be resurrected in the same process due to current limitations in the pass registry, and perhaps

I'm curious about the design rationale for how ManagedStatic instances are cleaned up, and I'm hoping someone can shed some light on it. Currently, ManagedStatic objects are cleaned up when llvm_shutdown() traverses the global list of initialized objects and calls destroy() on each. This leads to two questions: 1. An assertion enforces that the objects are deleted in reverse order of

...ndich/ParallelAssert/llvm-objects/tools/opt/Debug+Asserts/opt.o llvm::createInstructionSimplifierPass() /n/fs/scratch/tpondich/ParallelAssert/llvm-objects/tools/opt/Debug+Asserts/opt.o vtable for llvm::TargetData /n/fs/scratch/tpondich/ParallelAssert/llvm-objects/tools/opt/Debug+Asserts/opt.o llvm::PassRegistrationListener::enumeratePasses() /n/fs/scratch/tpondich/ParallelAssert/llvm-objects/tools/opt/Debug+Asserts/opt.o llvm::User::operator new(unsigned int, unsigned int)/n/fs/scratch/tpondich/ParallelAssert/llvm-objects/tools/opt/Debug+Asserts/opt.o llvm::createGlobalsModRefPass() /n/fs/scratch/tpondich/ParallelA...