search for: runonfunction

...list passes. I want to do some experiment to see the difference between grouping and non-grouping execution. Considering the following example, if I want to apply transformation A, B and C. The execution order is: A.doInitialization(); B.doInitialization(); C.doInitialization(); A.runOnFunction(); B.runOnFunction(); C.runOnFunction(); A.doInitialization(); B.doInitialization(); C.doInitialization(); Is it possible to disable the grouping? Make it execute as: A.doInitialization(); A.runOnFunction(); A.doInitialization(); B.doInitialization(); B.runOnFunction...

...erence between grouping and non-grouping >> execution. >> Considering the following example, if I want to apply transformation >> A, B and C. The execution order is: >> A.doInitialization(); >> B.doInitialization(); >> C.doInitialization(); >> A.runOnFunction(); >> B.runOnFunction(); >> C.runOnFunction(); >> A.doInitialization(); >> B.doInitialization(); >> C.doInitialization(); >> >> Is it possible to disable the grouping? Make it execute as: >> >> A.doInitialization(); >>...

On Mar 31, 2010, at 3:13 PM, Owen Anderson wrote: > Some analyses, like Andersen's AA, do all their computation in their > runOnFunction(). Therefore, anything they depended on can be > destroyed after the runOnFunction() returns. What about AA itself? Would addRequired<AliasAnalysis> keep AliasAnalysis alive (but allow AliasAnalysis's dependencies to die)? > Others, like MemoryDependenceAnalysis, are "l...

...periment to see the difference between grouping and non-grouping > execution. > Considering the following example, if I want to apply transformation > A, B and C. The execution order is: > A.doInitialization(); > B.doInitialization(); > C.doInitialization(); > A.runOnFunction(); > B.runOnFunction(); > C.runOnFunction(); > A.doInitialization(); > B.doInitialization(); > C.doInitialization(); > > Is it possible to disable the grouping? Make it execute as: > > A.doInitialization(); > A.runOnFunction(); > A.do...

On Fri Apr 02 00:37:03 +0200 2010, Trevor Harmon wrote: > On Mar 31, 2010, at 3:13 PM, Owen Anderson wrote: > > Others, like MemoryDependenceAnalysis, are "lazy." MDA > > specifically does NOT compute results in its runOnFunction(), > > instead computing results on-demand when a user queries it. Because > > MDA depends on AA, we must ensure that, as long as MDA is alive and > > responding to queries, AA is alive as well. That is what > > addRequiredTransitive does. > > I'm not sure if I f...

Hello I'm wandring to write a Function parser that iterates over loops inside each function and inside each loop iterates over instructions So I found a way to do the Function parser that iterates over BasicBlocks (using the runOnfunction Pass) but I no know how make it iterates over loops ? So my question is there any way to make a loop inside the runOnfunction to iterate over "loops" (just like with the Basicblock loop "for (BasicBlock::iterator i = b->begin(), ie = b->end(); i != ie; ++i) " ) ? Than...

Hi, I am trying to call LowerSwitchPass directly in my custom pass in this way: FunctionPass *lower = createLowerSwitchPass(); lower->runOnFunction(*f); But it will crash when running lower->runOnFunction(*f) in llvm-9. I was using this method in llvm-8 and it worked fine. It seems the crash happens at the first line of the LowerSwitch::runOnFunction(Function &F) in the newer llvm: LazyValueInfo *LVI = &getAnalysis<LazyValueInf...

...of the pass". For example, if a pass is "available" when my pass runs, then I should be able to use it when my pass is running, correct? For instance: void MyPass::getAnalysisUsage(AnalysisUsage &AU) const { AU.addRequired<UnifyFunctionExitNodes>(); } bool MyPass::runOnFunction(Function &function) { UnifyFunctionExitNodes &pass = getAnalysis<UnifyFunctionExitNodes>(); // ... use the pass ... } But if the above is okay, then why would addRequiredTransitive be necessary? I suspect that the REQUIRES definition is simply not worded well. Perhaps...

...ModulePass(ID) { ;; } virtual void getAnalysisUsage(AnalysisUsage &AU) const { AU.addRequired<MemoryDependenceAnalysis>(); errs() << "addRequired called\n"; } virtual bool runOnModule(Module &M) { for(Module::iterator f = M.begin(); f != M.end(); ++f) runOnFunction(*f, M); return false; } private: bool runOnFunction(Function &F, Module &M) { MD = &getAnalysis<MemoryDependenceAnalysis>(F); for(Function::iterator i = F.begin(); i != F.end(); ++i) { for(BasicBlock::iterator j = i->begin(); j != i->end(); ++j) { ;; }...

...s. After some debugging, it looks to me like ScalarEvolutionWrapperPass does not handle memory correctly for this case. Here's my current understanding of the problem. ScalarEvolutionWrapperPass maintains a unique_ptr to a ScalarEvolution. Calling getSE() dereferences this pointer. Meanwhile runOnFunction() resets the pointer to point to a new ScalarEvolution. As a result, runOnFunction destructs and frees any ScalarEvolution the unique_ptr pointed to before. The ModulePass I'm working on uses ScalarEvolution and several other analysis FunctionPasses, including DominatorTree, LoopInfo, Optimiz...

...e pass". For example, if a pass is > "available" when my pass runs, then I should be able to use it when my > pass is running, correct? For instance: > Consider passes like AliasAnalysis or MemoryDependenceAnalysis. These passes has two phases of existence: when their runOnFunction is called, and when later passes (which requested them via their own AnalysisUsage's) call methods on them to query that information. Some analyses, like Andersen's AA, do all their computation in their runOnFunction(). Therefore, anything they depended on can be destroyed after the runOn...

...> >> On Thu, Dec 26, 2019 at 6:36 PM n3v3rm03 <n3v3rm03 at gmail.com> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I am trying to call LowerSwitchPass directly in my custom pass in this way: >> >> >> FunctionPass *lower = createLowerSwitchPass(); >> lower->runOnFunction(*f); >> >> But it will crash when running lower->runOnFunction(*f) in llvm-9. >> I was using this method in llvm-8 and it worked fine. It seems the crash happens at the first line of the LowerSwitch::runOnFunction(Function &F) in the newer llvm: >> >> LazyVal...

...gt; the > code. Unfortunately, non-local dependencies of MemDep might point to > code changed by Pass2. Therefore, Pass1 might see changes applied by > Pass2. This breaks encapsulation. > > So I want to make sure the PassManager runs Pass1 on the whole module, > before Pass2's runOnFunction is called the first time. Not impossible at all. I assume that Pass1 is your pass, just make the "Pass1::runOnFunction" method do everything you need. If Pass2 ends up calling pass1 in various ways that require it to do things after its runonfunciton is complete, just make pass1...

...1. Eventually, Pass2 changes the code. Unfortunately, non-local dependencies of MemDep might point to code changed by Pass2. Therefore, Pass1 might see changes applied by Pass2. This breaks encapsulation. So I want to make sure the PassManager runs Pass1 on the whole module, before Pass2's runOnFunction is called the first time. Still impossible? Thanks Marc

In runOnFunction(), you should check to see if the function F is a declaration before calling getAnalysis(F). Calling getAnalysis<FunctionPass>() on a function that is a declaration will trigger an assertion if the function is just a declaration. To see if a function is a declaration, call its isDeclarat...

...espace llvm; struct Hello: public FunctionPass { public: static char ID; Hello(): FunctionPass(ID) { ;; } virtual void getAnalysisUsage(AnalysisUsage &AU) const { AU.addRequired<MemoryDependenceAnalysis>(); errs() << "addRequired called\n"; } virtual bool runOnFunction(Function &F) { if(F.isDeclaration() == true) return false; MemoryDependenceAnalysis *MD = &getAnalysis<MemoryDependenceAnalysis>(F); for(Function::iterator i = F.begin(); i != F.end(); ++i) { for(BasicBlock::iterator j = i->begin(); j != i->end(); ++j) { i-&gt...

Hi all, I am trying to traverse a dominator tree and have encountered a weird runtime exception: Here's my simple code: virtual bool runOnFunction(Function &F) { DominatorTree& DT = getAnalysis<DominatorTree>(); * DomTreeNode* rootNode = DT.getRootNode();* return false. } Here's the documentation page: http://llvm.org/docs/doxygen/html/classllvm_1_1DominatorTree.html And here's my runtime exception: d...

Hi, I wrote a Function pass that requires the IntervalPartition pass in order to obtain the set of intervals for every function: virtual void getAnalysisUsage(AnalysisUsage &AU) const { AU.addRequired<IntervalPartition>(); } and get a handle to it in the runOnFunction method of my CustomPass: bool CustomPass::runOnFunction(Function& F) { IntervalPartition& iPart = getAnalysis<IntervalPartition>(); const std::vector<Interval*>& intervals = iPart.getIntervals(); ... } However when i access the intervals vector for a parti...

...der (callees before callers). However, "Writing an LLVM Pass" notes that "FunctionPass's do not require that they are executed in a particular order." Is there any way at all to specify an ordering? If this is not possible, I'm thinking of a workaround in which my runOnFunction method does not actually process the function but instead copies the Function object to a "work set". When runOnFunction has been invoked for all functions, I would then perform the analysis on each saved function in the order that I desire. Does this sound like the right approach...

...uot;llvm/Analysis/Dominators.h" using namespace llvm; namespace { struct Hello : public FunctionPass { static char ID; Hello() : FunctionPass(ID) { } virtual void getAnalysisUsage(AnalysisUsage &AU) const { AU.addRequired<DominatorTree>(); } virtual bool runOnFunction(Function &F) { DominatorTree& DT = getAnalysis<DominatorTree>(); BasicBlock* BB = DT.getRoot(); return false; } }; } char Hello::ID = 0; static RegisterPass<Hello> Z("hello", "My test analysis", true, true); On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 9...