similar to: Error: Verify if there is a pass dependency cycle

Hi, You need to initialize your pass with: INITIALIZE_PASS_BEGIN(YourPass, "your-pass", "Your Pass", /*cfgonly=*/false, /*analysis=*/false) INITIALIZE_PASS_DEPENDENCY(PostDominatorTreeWrapperPass) INITIALIZE_PASS_END(YourPass, "your-pass", "Your Pass", /*cfgonly=*/false, /*analysis=*/false) So as to both register your pass, and have

Hi Mikhail, As Brian noted, stuff like this works better in the new pass manager. Even in the old pass manager I thought it should work though. Did you initialize the pass, via `INITIALIZE_PASS_DEPENDENCY(PostDominatorTreeWrapperPass)`? Did you require it, via ` AU.addRequired<PostDominatorTreeWrapperPass>();`? Btw. May I ask what you are planning to do? Cheers, Johannes On 01/07,

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

I'm seeing some very unexpected behavior in a ModulePass I've created. To support both the legacy and new pass managers, I've abstracted away the code to get the passes it depends on: bool MyPass::runOnModule(Module &M) override { auto DominatorGetter = [this] (Function &F) -> DominatorTree & { return

Dear all, I write a new LoopPass which wants to use passes including LoopInfoWrapperPass, ScalarEvolutionWrapperPass and LoopAccessLegacyAnalysis. Therefore, I implement the following code based on LLVM 9.0.0: ===================================================================== bool LoopInformationCollect::runOnLoop(Loop *L, LPPassManager &) { auto &SE =

Wenbin Zhang wrote: > I'll try the trunk, as well as check my code again. If indeed it's not > fixed, I'll try to post a triggering case here. > Thanks for the advice~ > Did you run the -mergereturn pass (it might also be called UnifyExitNodes in the source code)? This is the pass that ensures that each function has exactly one basic block that returns control to the

I'll try the trunk, as well as check my code again. If indeed it's not fixed, I'll try to post a triggering case here. Thanks for the advice~ Best, --Wenbin ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tobias Grosser" <grosser at fim.uni-passau.de> To: "Wenbin Zhang" <zhangwen at cse.ohio-state.edu> Cc: <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> Sent: Thursday, August

Hi folks, For the past month I’ve been working on improving the DominatorTree and PostDominatorTree in LLVM. The RFC that explains the motivations and plans can be found here: http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2017-June/114045.html . Here’s a short summary of what changed upstream since posting it: - We switched from the Simple Lengauer-Tarjan algorithm for computing dominators

This is surely a simple question, but it appears that PostDominatorTree does not provide an interface to get at post dominator data. Also, it is not a concrete subclass of DominatorTree, as is presented in the doxygen page and the commented source. Any way to get post-dom data without hacking it into PostDominatorTree?

Update: the "unnamed pass" is PostDominatorTree. My module pass requires PDT (specified in its getAnalysisUsage). When it visits a function, it calls getAnalysis<PostDominatorTree>(), which triggers the failed assertion "getAnalysis*() called on an analysis that was not 'required' by pass!" This issue has been addressed on this mailing list, but it seems the

Solved... For the record, there were two issues: 1) I was not passing the Function to getAnalysis for the PDT. 2) I was attempting to getAnalysis on external functions. On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 5:49 PM, Scott Ricketts<sricketts at maxentric.com> wrote: > Update: the "unnamed pass" is PostDominatorTree. My module pass > requires PDT (specified in its getAnalysisUsage). When it

On 4/12/13 3:19 PM, Arsen wrote: > Thank you John. > Actually the opt tool (from LLVM 3.2 version) can generate the needed graphs > (with pass "-domfrontier"). > But I just want to surely know is there some pass or builder which can be > integrated somehow so it will be possible directly to generate CDG? Yes and no. There's isn't a control dependence pass in LLVM

On 08/05/2010 06:46 AM, Wenbin Zhang wrote: > Hi all, > I'm using postDominatorTree to do some program analysis. My code works > well for small tests, but when I run it on real applications, the > following error occurs: > /Inorder PostDominator Tree: DFSNumbers invalid: 0 slow queries. > [1] <<exit node>> {0,21} > [2] %bb1 {1,2} > [2] %bb {3,4} > [2]

There is PostDominatorTree for determining post-dominance. Even if A post-dominates B and B is executed, that doesn't guarantee that A will be executed. For example, there could be an infinite loop in-between. Strong post-dominance makes the stronger guarantee that there will be no infinite loop from B to A. Do we have anything in LLVM for determining strong post-dominance and in general for

On Aug 24, 2009, at 4:58 PM, Jonathan Ragan-Kelley wrote: > Many published analyses which build on post-dominance assume a > canonical single-dominator-tree form induced by unifying all exits > (and often adding a virtual edge from START to END). In contrast, it > seems that the current LLVM post-dominator analysis only operates in a > mode in which it generates a forest of

Many published analyses which build on post-dominance assume a canonical single-dominator-tree form induced by unifying all exits (and often adding a virtual edge from START to END). In contrast, it seems that the current LLVM post-dominator analysis only operates in a mode in which it generates a forest of post-dominator trees, with one rooted at each exit node. The problem this can cause is

On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 11:09 AM, Sanjoy Das <sanjoy at playingwithpointers.com > wrote: > Hi Qiuping, > > If I'm reading the IR correctly, what you have is a > GetElementPtrConstantExpr [1]. It subclasses from llvm::Constant. > If you want the same code to handle GetElementPtrConstantExpr *and* GetElementPtrInst, you can use GEPOperator. > > Thanks, > --

Hi, John Criswell Thank you very much. I am installing LLVM-3.2, but I encounter the next error when carrying out "make": llvm[3]: Compiling ClangASTNodesEmitter.cpp for Release+Asserts build ClangASTNodesEmitter.cpp: In member function ‘std::pair<llvm::Record*, llvm::Record*><unnamed>::ClangASTNodesEmitter::EmitNode(const std::multimap<llvm::Record*, llvm::Record*,

On 12/19/11 9:55 PM, Mark Lacey wrote: > Does LLVM contain any control dependence analysis pass? There is a PostDominatorTree analysis. Control-dependence can be computed easily using it (see the paper "Efficiently computing static single assignment form and the control dependence graph" by Cytron et. al. for details on the algorithm). -- John T. > > I do not see one when

Hi Michael, Thank you very much. But idx_begin/idx_end iterators can only be used through a getelementptr instruction, right? However, I think value "i32* getelementptr inbounds (%struct.Args* @globalArg, i64 0, i32 2)" itself is not a getelementptr instruction, so? Or could you tell me how can I get a getelementptr instruction first from this value?