search for: pmdatamanager

...an error, which I could't fix until now. llc --load=/home/paul/LLVM/install/llvm-2.2/lib/MParSchedule.so --load=/home/paul/LLVM/install/llvm-2.2/lib/libLLVMVHDLBackend.so -f -march=vhdl test.o -o llvm.vhd llc: /home/paul/LLVM/src/llvm-2.2/lib/VMCore/PassManager.cpp:922: virtual void llvm::PMDataManager::addLowerLevelRequiredPass(llvm::Pass*, llvm::Pass*): Assertion `0 && "Unable to handle Pass that requires lower level Analysis pass"' failed. llc[0x85e922c] /lib/i686/cmov/libc.so.6(abort+0x101)[0x401e6981] /lib/i686/cmov/libc.so.6(__assert_fail+0xee)[0x401de10e] llc(llvm::...

...r Pass"); } I compile this to a shared object, and then run it: $ opt foo.bc -o bar.bc -load libBug.so -higher Unable to schedule 'Lower Pass' required by 'Higher Pass' opt: /media/secure/home/nick/classes/liberty/llvm/llvm/lib/VMCore/PassManager.cpp:1077: virtual void llvm::PMDataManager::addLowerLevelRequiredPass(llvm::Pass*, llvm::Pass*): Assertion `0 && "Unable to schedule pass"' failed. 0 opt 0x08721883 1 opt 0x08721be0 2 opt 0xb7f7e420 3 libc.so.6 0xb7d3bfb9 abort + 265 4 libc.so.6 0xb7d33fbf __assert_fail + 271 5 opt 0...

I just finished upgrading our LLVM to 2.4 and I immediately ran into a problem with dominance frontier calculation: llvm/lib/VMCore/PassManager.cpp:714: void llvm::PMDataManager::verifyDomInfo(llvm::Pass&, llvm::Function&): Assertion `0 && "Invalid dominator info"' failed. Strangely enough, the Pass running when the assert triggers is Dominance Frontier Construction. This is somewhat puzzling. Any idea where to start looking?...

Dear all, I would like to use the PostDominatorTree in ArgPromotion. I did not find an example of how to use function level analysis inside CallGraphSCCPass. I tried to follow an example of how to use function-level pass in a module pass, but I hit "llvm_unreachable" in PMDataManager::addLowerLevelRequiredPass. What would be a proper way to make PostDominatorTree available in ArgPromotion? Thanks in advance, Mikhail -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20200107/dd1bc481/attach...

...isUsage(AnalysisUsage &AU) const { AU.addRequired<AssumptionCacheTracker>(); AU.addRequired<TargetLibraryInfoWrapperPass>();+ AU.addRequired<LoopInfoWrapperPass>(); getAAResultsAnalysisUsage(AU); CallGraphSCCPass::getAnalysisUsage(AU);} I get llvm_unreachable in `void PMDataManager::addLowerLevelRequiredPass(Pass *P, Pass *RequiredPass)' Thanks,-Aditya -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160321/e25708b1/attachment.html>

...n a event driven language running on a game engine. Haven't updated to 2.7 yet, but I do intend to. When checking for memory leaks I found that each time I was calling EE->runFunction after creating a stub function to execute an event, all the pass information was being repeatedly added to PMDataManager. I have changed addAnalysisImplsPair to the following, which seems to have no side effects with what I am doing. Prior to that, AnalysisImpls contained thousands of entries and each time the vector gets realloced to accommodate more entries we lose a bigger chunk of memory. void addAnalysisImp...

...3 libc.so.6 0x00007f9c8d986d05 gsignal + 53 4 libc.so.6 0x00007f9c8d98aab6 abort + 390 5 opt 0x00000000008da974 llvm::llvm_unreachable_internal(char const*, char const*, unsigned int) + 356 6 opt 0x000000000087e046 7 opt 0x0000000000882b45 llvm::PMDataManager::add(llvm::Pass*, bool) + 741 8 opt 0x000000000087f413 llvm::PassManager::add(llvm::Pass*) + 259 9 opt 0x00000000004ab9be main + 2174 10 libc.so.6 0x00007f9c8d971eff __libc_start_main + 255 11 opt 0x000000000049f5f9 Stack dump: Any help would be appreci...

...y about 2K of my front-end code, 65K lines of LLVM-IR) Using valgrind I see some functions which seem out of place and accounting for the vast majority of the time.     5.72%; 635,008 Calls; llvm::PMTopLevelManager::findAnalysisPass(void const*) <cycle 4>     4.54%; 3,722,489 Calls; llvm::PMDataManager::findAnalysisPass(void const*, bool)'2     4.11%; 4,604,499 Calls; bool llvm::DenseMapBase<>::LookupBucketFor<>(void const* const&, llvm::detail::DenseMapPair<> const*&) const Also of interest, given the high call count:     1.32%; 6,915,882 Calls; llvm::FoldingSetN...

...bug-pass=Arguments -basicaa -licm -o /dev/null test.bc Then I can see that opt is getting stuck in lib/VMCore/PassManager.cpp on the loop at line 672, and just goes round this for as long as I've left it for (several minutes) : // Check other pass managers for (SmallVectorImpl<PMDataManager *>::iterator I = IndirectPassManagers.begin(), E = IndirectPassManagers.end(); I != E; ++I) if (Pass *P = (*I)->findAnalysisPass(AID, false)) return P; This old post on the list : http://old.nabble.com/Array-Dependence-Analysis-td16073995.html says t...

Hi, I have a FunctionPass that requires a ModulePass using addRequiredById(). When I start opt it infloops somewhere in PMDataManager::findAnalysisPass. Should I open a bug, or is this a known issue (i.e. I am doing something wrong)? Is there a workaround? My modulepass just assigns unique numbers to basicblocks (like StableBasicBlockNumbering, but unique per Module) I could do that with a functionpass too, but they are not al...

On Feb 18, 2009, at 8:00 AM, David Greene wrote: > I just finished upgrading our LLVM to 2.4 and I immediately ran into > a problem > with dominance frontier calculation: > > llvm/lib/VMCore/PassManager.cpp:714: void > llvm::PMDataManager::verifyDomInfo(llvm::Pass&, llvm::Function&): > Assertion > `0 && "Invalid dominator info"' failed. > > Strangely enough, the Pass running when the assert triggers is > Dominance > Frontier Construction. > > This is somewhat puzzling. Any i...

Can anyone explain what this means? llvm/include/llvm/PassManagers.h:232: virtual void llvm::PMDataManager::addLowerLevelRequiredPass(llvm::Pass*, llvm::Pass*): Assertion `0 && "Unable to handle Pass that requires lower level Analysis pass"' failed. -Dave

I've never been able to figure this one out: llvm/lib/VMCore/PassManager.cpp:938: virtual void llvm::PMDataManager::addLowerLevelRequiredPass(llvm::Pass*, llvm::Pass*): Assertion `0 && "Unable to handle Pass that requires lower level Analysis pass"' failed. In the past, I've resolved this by disabling random addRequired calls in the offending Pass, even when those dependencies are r...

...Manager overflows the stack and crashes 2) A dependency requires rescheduling (e.g. schedule A when A depends on B and C; C depends on B; but C doesn't preserve B) The Pass Manager should arrive at the sequence B C B A. Instead I get the "Unable to schedule pass" assertion from PMDataManager::addLowerLevelRequiredPass. 2) A pass depends on mutually exclusive graphs (i.e., schedule C when A invalidates B; B invalidates A; C depends on both A and B) I haven't tried this yet. -- Chris _________________________________________________________________ Windows Live™ SkyDrive™:...

...> > > llc --load=/home/paul/LLVM/install/llvm-2.2/lib/MParSchedule.so -- > load=/home/paul/LLVM/install/llvm-2.2/lib/libLLVMVHDLBackend.so -f - > march=vhdl > test.o -o llvm.vhd > llc: /home/paul/LLVM/src/llvm-2.2/lib/VMCore/PassManager.cpp:922: > virtual void > llvm::PMDataManager::addLowerLevelRequiredPass(llvm::Pass*, > llvm::Pass*): > Assertion `0 && "Unable to handle Pass that requires lower level > Analysis > pass"' failed. > llc[0x85e922c] > /lib/i686/cmov/libc.so.6(abort+0x101)[0x401e6981] > /lib/i686/cmov/libc.so.6(__ass...

...a)[0x86423ca] opt((anonymous namespace)::SignalHandler(int)+0x110)[0x86426f2] /lib/tls/libc.so.6[0x683898] opt(std::vector<llvm::Pass*, std::allocator<llvm::Pass*> >::begin()+0x19)[0x84e3bb7] opt(llvm::PMTopLevelManager::findAnalysisPass(llvm::PassInfo const*)+0x26)[0x85cc88a] opt(llvm::PMDataManager::findAnalysisPass(llvm::PassInfo const*, bool)+0xb7)[0x85cc827] opt(llvm::PMDataManager::initializeAnalysisImpl(llvm::Pass*)+0x96)[0x85cd39e] opt(llvm::FPPassManager::runOnFunction(llvm::Function&)+0xff)[0x85ce667] opt(llvm::MPPassManager::getOnTheFlyPass(llvm::Pass*, llvm::PassInfo const*, llv...

...n `(P->getPotentialPassManagerType() < RequiredPass->getPotentialPassManagerType()) && "Unable to handle Pass that requires lower level Analysis pass"' failed. even though all passes are ModulePasses and do not require lower level passes. The attached patch modifies PMDataManager::add() to check if the required pass is actually a lower level pass before calling addLowerLevelRequiredPass(); if not, it calls add() instead. Not sure if this is the best fix, but it works for me. I also attached a test case with the three passes A, B, C described above. Kevin -------------- n...

...3 libc.so.6 0x00007f9c8d986d05 gsignal + 53 4 libc.so.6 0x00007f9c8d98aab6 abort + 390 5 opt 0x00000000008da974 llvm::llvm_unreachable_internal(char const*, char const*, unsigned int) + 356 6 opt 0x000000000087e046 7 opt 0x0000000000882b45 llvm::PMDataManager::add(llvm::Pass*, bool) + 741 8 opt 0x000000000087f413 llvm::PassManager::add(llvm::Pass*) + 259 9 opt 0x00000000004ab9be main + 2174 10 libc.so.6 0x00007f9c8d971eff __libc_start_main + 255 11 opt 0x000000000049f5f9 Stack dump: On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 1:1...

...1102a58 ............X*.. Leak: 0x01103610 size=16 0x00000000 0x00000000 0x00000000 0x01103368 ............h3.. So all I know is that It's a size 16 leak *grin*. But MallocDebug reports as leaks 2.4M start 2.4M operator new(unsigned long) 2.4M MDmalloc 2.4M main 2.4M llvm::PMDataManager::add(llvm::Pass*, bool) 2.4M llvm::LoopPass::assignPassManager(llvm::PMStack&, llvm::PassManagerType) 2.4M llvm::LLVMTargetMachine::addPassesToEmitMachineCode (llvm::FunctionPassManager&, llvm::MachineCodeEmitter&, bool) 2.4M llvm::JIT::JIT[in-charge](llvm::ModuleProvider*, llvm::T...

On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 10:45 AM, Misha Brukman <brukman at gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 12:17 PM, Ioannis Nousias < > ioannis.nousias at googlemail.com> wrote: > >> >> Also, LLVM-TV seems outdated. I've tried to compile it with 2.5 LLVM >> and >> >> got various errors due to API changes. Tried to correct them, but got >>