similar to: Pass segmentation fault after llvm_shutdown.

I ran into a similar problem a while ago; see https://reviews.llvm.org/D30107 and https://reviews.llvm.org/D33515 .  You get the unusual stack trace because it's trying to call a destructor in shared library which was already unloaded. I thought we had fixed that, but maybe not?  Looking again, it looks like the patch got reverted and I didn't notice. -Eli On 5/14/2018 10:18 PM,

This is the correct path to the pass: https://github.com/PRUNERS/sword/blob/master/lib/Transforms/Instrumentation/InstrumentParallel.cpp On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 10:06 PM, Simone Atzeni <simone.at at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > I was porting my pass from LLVM 4.0 to 6.0 and I am getting a segmentation > fault. > I was able to obtain only the info below from GDB. > >

It's working with trunk though. Do you think the patch will end up in 6.0.1? Thanks. Simone On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 11:18 AM, Friedman, Eli <efriedma at codeaurora.org> wrote: > I ran into a similar problem a while ago; see https://reviews.llvm.org/ > D30107 and https://reviews.llvm.org/D33515 . You get the unusual stack > trace because it's trying to call a destructor

Hi, We are upgrading an LLVM 4.0-based opt module to LLVM 5.0. After the upgrade our module works when built with an LLVM Debug build, but with an LLVM Release build we are encountering the following error. This happens after our passes have successfully run. I believe this has to do with the way our passes are registered. Would greatly appreciate some pointers, as to where to look. Program

On 9/18/2017 8:20 PM, Diptorup Deb via llvm-dev wrote: > Hi, > > We are upgrading an LLVM 4.0-based opt module to LLVM 5.0. After the > upgrade our module works when built with an LLVM Debug build, but > with an LLVM Release build we are encountering the following error. > > This happens after our passes have successfully run. I believe this > has to do with the way our

Hi llvmdev! In our project (Windows, Visual Studio compiler) we've got some frontend which generates LLVM IR. Now I'm observing strange *llvm_shutdown* behavior. If I called it when I was done using the LLVM APIs I saw that destructors of static objects created new ManagedStatic objects, which was never freed. Then I tried to use static global llvm_shutdown_obj to cause destruction

Hi Tobias, I am trying to move Polly later. LLVM provides some predefined ExtensionPointTy: EP_EarlyAsPossible, EP_ModuleOptimizerEarly, EP_LoopOptimizerEnd, EP_ScalarOptimizerLate, ... Currently Polly uses "EP_EarlyAsPossible" to run as early as possible. As what you suggested: >Instead of removing canonicalization passes, I believe we may want to >move

On 09/19/2013 04:46 PM, Star Tan wrote: > Hi Tobias, > > > I am trying to move Polly later. > > > LLVM provides some predefined ExtensionPointTy: > EP_EarlyAsPossible, > EP_ModuleOptimizerEarly, > EP_LoopOptimizerEnd, > EP_ScalarOptimizerLate, > ... > > > Currently Polly uses "EP_EarlyAsPossible" to run as early as

Thanks John. I guess I will use a ModulePass, so when I am implementing the “runOnModule” function, do I have to loop through all the functions, for each functions all the BasicBlocks and for each BasicBlock all the instructions or given the Module I have to call the CallGraph directly? Is there an example out there? I can’t find anything. Thanks. Simone > On Feb 24, 2015, at 13:29, John

> > On Nov 19, 2016, at 14:09, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> wrote: > > I assume from your description that you are also updating call sites in the same module so that if foo was calling atoi, after cloning you have foo_parallel that is calling atoi_parallel? > If this is the issue, it depends, I’d probably consider turning the available_externally into internal.

Hi all, I would like to create a Pass that given an IR instruction walks starting from that instruction up to the main function to identify all the functions call that have been made to call that instruction. Is it possible? What kind of Pass should I create? Thanks Best, Simone Simone Atzeni simone.at at gmail.com +1 (801) 696-8373

Because what is happening is that if function “atoi” gets cloned I don’t have a definition of “atoi_parallel” therefore I get undefined references when linking. I just want to clone and instrument functions implemented in modules of my program. > On Nov 19, 2016, at 13:54, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> wrote: > > >> On Nov 19, 2016, at 12:44 PM, Simone Atzeni

On 09/17/2013 04:12 AM, Star Tan wrote: > Now, we come to more evaluations on http://188.40.87.11:8000/db_default/v4/nts/recent_activity Hi Star Tan, thanks for this very extensive analysis. The results look very interesting. As you found out, just removing some canonicalization passes will reduce compile time, but this reduction may in large part being due to Polly not being able to

Hi, I am trying to compile LLVM for AARCH (VMA=42), here my cmake command: cmake -G "Ninja" -D SANITIZER_AARCH64_VMA=42 .. But I get the following warning: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ CMake Warning: Manually-specified variables were not used by the project: SANITIZER_AARCH64_VMA

Thanks Mehdi. My pass clones the functions within a module in order to have the original function and an exact copy of the same function but with a different name, i.e. sum() and sum_parallel(). After my pass I will run ThreadSanitizer instrumentation pass only on the new copy of the functions, i.e. only the “_parallel” functions will be instrumented by tsan. In some programs that I am

Dear lazydev, I'm writing an instrumentation pass that depends on AliasAnalysis. My getAnalysisUsage() looks as follows: 2453 void ThreadSanitizer::getAnalysisUsage(AnalysisUsage &AU) const { 2454 AU.addRequired<TargetData>(); 2455 AU.addRequired<AliasAnalysis>(); 2456 } and the pass initialization: 2668 char ThreadSanitizer::ID = 0; 2669

Thanks, I tried calling ResetAllOptionOccurrences after the run like this… // Compile the module TimeCompilations times to give better compile time // metrics. for (unsigned I = TimeCompilations; I; --I) if (int RetVal = compileModule(argv, Context)) return RetVal; if (YamlFile) YamlFile->keep(); cl::ResetAllOptionOccurrences(); return 0; } Unfortunately

Hi Simon, > From: Simone Atzeni <simone.at at gmail.com> > To: John Criswell <jtcriswel at gmail.com> > Cc: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Walking thru CallGraph bottom up > Message-ID: <318EBA41-2040-4EFE-B330-5813C817C2A2 at gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" > > I think I got it and the example is

On 2/25/15 10:51 AM, Simone Atzeni wrote: > Thanks John. > > I guess I will use a ModulePass, so when I am implementing the “runOnModule” function, > do I have to loop through all the functions, for each functions all the BasicBlocks and for each BasicBlock all the instructions If you know the Instruction, you can get it's basic block using Instruction::getParent(), and then get

Now, we come to more evaluations on http://188.40.87.11:8000/db_default/v4/nts/recent_activity I mainly care about the compile-time and execution time impact for the following cases: pBasic (run 45): clang -O3 -load LLVMPolly.so pNoGenSCEV (run 44): clang -O3 -load LLVMPolly.so -polly-codegen-scev -polly -polly-optimizer=none -polly-code-generator=none pNoGenSCEV_nocan (run 47): same option