search for: simplifycfgpass

...for opt, but it makes no reference to simplifycfg anywhere in the code. I'm guessing it does something else that gets that option linked in and somehow thereby connects that to activating the actual pass; how is this done? Alternatively in an attempt to hardwire it I got as far as FPM.add(new SimplifyCFGPass); but that fails to compile because SimplifyCFGPass isn't of a compatible type, which indeed it isn't; what should I be doing here? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20150920/ed626eca/atta...

...gt; the code. I'm guessing it does something else that gets that option > > linked in and somehow thereby connects that to activating the actual > > pass; how is this done? > > > > > > Alternatively in an attempt to hardwire it I got as far as > > FPM.add(new SimplifyCFGPass); but that fails to compile because > > SimplifyCFGPass isn't of a compatible type, which indeed it isn't; > > what should I be doing here? > > _______________________________________________ > > LLVM Developers mailing list > > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org >...

...ing else that gets that option > > > linked in and somehow thereby connects that to activating the > > > actual > > > pass; how is this done? > > > > > > > > > Alternatively in an attempt to hardwire it I got as far as > > > FPM.add(new SimplifyCFGPass); but that fails to compile because > > > SimplifyCFGPass isn't of a compatible type, which indeed it isn't; > > > what should I be doing here? > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > LLVM Developers mailing list &g...

...</File> > <File > - RelativePath="..\..\lib > \Transforms\Scalar\SimplifyCFG.cpp" > + RelativePath="..\..\lib > \Transforms\Scalar\SimplifyCFGPass.cpp" >> > </File> > <File > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/...

attached is the diff of vcprojs that need to be changed to fix the VS build as of revision: 51224. I don't know if this catches all the missing bits, but this does build all the way through. -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: msvs.patch URL:

Hello guys, Do we have a pass to do unconditional branch folding except the one in Codegen? I checked in the lib/Transforms/Scalar, did not see any promising one. thank you, yuanfang

...able basic block ("continuation" below ) after running one of my own IR transforms , but I keep getting the error - While deleting: i8* %g Use still stuck around after Def is destroyed: store i8 0, i8* %g I am well aware of what that means, but isn't the whole purpose of the "simplifyCFGPass" to delete the unreachable basic blocks for us ? Why must it then throw this error ? I would assume it should simply be able to manage all the use-def dependencies and delete the instructions in the unreachable "continuation" basic block below. Following is the relevant IR ent...

On 8/7/19 6:20 PM, Hiroshi Yamauchi wrote: > I basically run "clang > -fexperimental-new-pass-manager -print-after-all ..." > > It's conceivable that something is different in our setup or in clang > (from opt)... I'll see if I can reproduce it outside our setup. Does it depend on machine architecture? I generally use x86... regards,   Fedor. > > Thanks.

...e following source code: __attribute__((noduplicate)) __attribute__((always_inline)) void wait () { // some code barrier(); // some code } __attribute__((noduplicate)) void barrier (); void f () { // some code wait(); // some code } Sometimes I observed a phenomenon that SimplifyCFGPass would transform function f to: void f () { // some code wait(); // some code critedge: // some code wait(); // some code } After the execution of AlwaysInliner, the function f would be: void f () { // some code barrier(); // some code critedge: // some cod...

...ritingAnLLVMPass.html#specifying-interactions-between-passes>, All examples that i see here are based on collecting information .i.e Analysis Passes. I wonder if this applies to Transformation passes also. e.g. void MyInliner::getAnalysisUsage(AnalysisUsage &AU) const { AU.addRequired<SimplifyCFGPass>(); // Transformation Pass AU.addRequired<AnnotatedFunctionPass>(); // Transformation like pass AU.addRequired<CallGraphSCCPass>(); // Analysis Pass } here AnnotateFunctionPass is adding meta information,so technically nothing Functional transformational in module and n...

...esn't build. first problem is patch 51098 that adds lib\VMCore\Use.cpp and lib\Transforms\Utils\UnrollLoop.cpp neither of which seem to exist in the release_23 branch another problem is patch 51237 which among other things renames lib\Transforms\Scalar\SimplifyCFG.cpp to lib\Transforms\Scalar\SimplifyCFGPass.cpp however the removal of lib\Transforms\Ipo\SimplifyLibCalls.cpp is necessary, so it won't build without this patch either. I didn't have to apply patch 51323 to get things to build -- but the patch seems correct and it builds OK with it applied FYI I'm using Visual Studio 2005 Prof...

...========================================================= --- lib/Transforms/Scalar/CMakeLists.txt (revision 85194) +++ lib/Transforms/Scalar/CMakeLists.txt (working copy) @@ -23,6 +23,7 @@ Reassociate.cpp Reg2Mem.cpp SCCP.cpp + SCCVN.cpp Scalar.cpp ScalarReplAggregates.cpp SimplifyCFGPass.cpp -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20091027/d6a8b62d/attachment.html> -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: CMakeLists.patch Type: application/o...

> Ok, I got the release_23 branch and added/removed files until it would build > without errors. I didn't have time to test the clang build, but at least this > patch will make things compile so someone else can test it. I just sent a reply to Razvan with 3 patches that I think should be merged into the release branch. I want to keep it somewhat in sync with mainline. Can you try

...gt; first problem is patch 51098 that adds lib\VMCore\Use.cpp and lib\Transforms\Utils\UnrollLoop.cpp neither of which seem to exist in the release_23 branch > > another problem is patch 51237 which among other things renames lib\Transforms\Scalar\SimplifyCFG.cpp > to lib\Transforms\Scalar\SimplifyCFGPass.cpp > however the removal of lib\Transforms\Ipo\SimplifyLibCalls.cpp is necessary, so it won't build without this patch either. > > I didn't have to apply patch 51323 to get things to build -- but the patch seems correct and it builds OK with it applied > > FYI I'm using...

Hi everyone, I'm currently trying to run a study on irreducibility of C programs, and I've implemented structural analysis (original paper by Sharir, algorithm in Muchnick's book) as an LLVM pass. When my implementation becomes a bit less buggy I'll certainly look into including it in the LLVM project. As a test for the algorithm I've been producing LLVM bitcode for C files

Hello I am working on pass which has dependency on multiple passes. Say D1,D2,D3 I used INITIALIZE_PASS_BEGIN INITIALIZE_PASS_DEPENDENCY(D1) INITIALIZE_PASS_DEPENDENCY(D2) INITIALIZE_PASS_DEPENDENCY(D3) INITIALIZE_PASS_END. While running it through opt tool it, I had to specify this D1,D2,D3 pass names to get this pass executed before my pass. Is there way, to let llvm pass manager to know

Hi, I am a new user of LLVM. I am using it as the IR for a compiler for a subset of LUA. I have the .ll file ready and it executes fine when passed to the llvm interpreter. Now, I wish to perform a few optimizations to the code starting with dead code elimination. For this I would need the CFG. I am very new to all of this stuff. Please help me out guys. The way I want to proceed is to start at

In https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=38011 (see also https://reviews.llvm.org/D48721) a problem was revealed related to llvm.loop metadata. The fault was that clang added the !llvm.loop metadata to branches outside of the loop (not only the loop latch). That was not handled properly by some opt passes (simplifying cfg) since it ended up merging branch instructions with different !llvm.loop

Razvan Aciu wrote: > As I saw from the mailing list the MSVC 2005 patches were made to take into > account the new files from the development branch, files which are not in > the 2.3 release. So for now the below patch is the only one functional for > the release. If I am wrong, please someone correct me. > > If someone can make a 2005 patch for the release branch, it is ok.

...eDyld' llvm[3]: Compiling SeparateConstOffsetFromGEP.cpp for Release+Asserts build llvm[3]: Compiling RTDyldMemoryManager.cpp for Release+Asserts build llvm[2]: Compiling TargetMachineC.cpp for Release+Asserts build llvm[3]: Compiling RuntimeDyld.cpp for Release+Asserts build llvm[3]: Compiling SimplifyCFGPass.cpp for Release+Asserts build llvm[2]: Compiling TargetRecip.cpp for Release+Asserts build llvm[2]: Compiling TargetSubtargetInfo.cpp for Release+Asserts build llvm[3]: Compiling RuntimeDyldCOFF.cpp for Release+Asserts build llvm[2]: Building Release+Asserts Archive Library libLLVMTarget.a make[2]:...