similar to: [LLVMdev] -Woverloaded-virtual

On Thu, 24 Jun 2004, Vladimir Prus wrote: > I've just had some fun, because I wanted to override > FunctionPass::addAnalysisUsage, but forgot "const" after the method name -- > so instead of overriding I've just created a new unrelated method. Ya know, I think that everyone has done that at least once (myself included)... on THAT VERY METHOD. grr :) I definitely

I've long been an advocate of using -Woverloaded-virtual. The thing with this option is that it can REALLY help catch some nasty inheritance bugs. I'm running into these as I'm designing the bytecode analyzer interface. I make a change to the interface, forget to change a subclass, and bingo, that method doesn't get called any more and the compiler doesn't warn me about it. I

On Thu, 24 Jun 2004, Reid Spencer wrote: > I asked Chris about this months ago but there was little interest in > changing it. I thought we were talking about -Weffc++ at that time? > Perhaps we need to file a bug to take care of the warnings it produces > so that LLVm is overloaded virtual clean, then we can turn on checking > for overloaded virtuals. This sounds like a great

Hi > One would expect this, its a facility of the C++ language. The anonymous > namespace is, essentially, the same as declaring everything in it > static. That is, the symbols are not exported and not available for > linking. Yes, it was pretty clear after finding out that this isn't a linking error which i suspected... > > So for all those trying to add an analysis path:

Hi Am Dienstag, 30. Mai 2006 19:21 schrieb Chris Lattner: > On Tue, 30 May 2006, Silken Tiger wrote: > > Everthing now compiles fine, but when running llc with invoking my own > > backend derived from the cbackend i get the following error: > > namespace llvm { > > class MParSchedule : public BasicBlockPass { > > public: > > > >

The patch below basically hammers out some ideas as to where I'd like to take the passmanager in LLVM. I've tried thinking things through, but I'm still a n00b, so some criticism would be more than welcome. =) Starting from line 191 down. If you're wondering why I created a patch, well that's because I found thinking in passmanagert.h the most productive. -- Regards.

On Tue, 2006-05-30 at 14:48 +0200, Silken Tiger wrote: > Hi > > Thanks for all your feedback. I just found the reason for the compile failure > for my analysis pass: I had to add my object to the namespace llvm instead of > anonymous. This took me some time since i was looking for an linking > failure... but as errors go i should have looked at the error message a >

Hi Thanks for all your feedback. I just found the reason for the compile failure for my analysis pass: I had to add my object to the namespace llvm instead of anonymous. This took me some time since i was looking for an linking failure... but as errors go i should have looked at the error message a little closer. So for all those trying to add an analysis path: * add the object name to the

On Wed, 31 May 2006, Silken Tiger wrote: >> that requires a BasicBlockPass, it will fail the same was as when a >> ModulePass requires a FunctionPass. > void MParSchedule::getAnalysisUsage(AnalysisUsage &AU) const { > AU.setPreservesAll(); > } > > MParSchedule requires nothing and changes nothing. So hopefully the above code > represents this fact? Right

Hi > Right it does. However, does something *else* require MParSchedule? If > so, what? Ok, i am writing on a different backend based on the cbackend. The test usage of this pass looks like this: void getAnalysisUsage(AnalysisUsage &AU) const { AU.addRequired<LoopInfo>(); AU.addRequired<MParSchedule>(); AU.setPreservesAll(); } and then in the

On Mon, 9 Jan 2006, Saem Ghani wrote: > The patch below basically hammers out some ideas as to where I'd like > to take the passmanager in LLVM. I've tried thinking things through, > but I'm still a n00b, so some criticism would be more than welcome. =) > > Starting from line 191 down. If you're wondering why I created a > patch, well that's because I found

On Aug 5, 2004, at 8:11 PM, Chris Lattner wrote: > > Sure, you can do that. Just use F->getParent() to get to the Module. D'oh. OK, so I can do what I need with a hack for now. >> Also, out of curiosity, why the stateless restriction - is it because >> passes may someday be run in parallel? > > Yup, exactly. That and we want to be able to make multiple instances

On Aug 5, 2004, at 5:30 PM, Chris Lattner wrote: > On Thu, 5 Aug 2004, Michael McCracken wrote: > >> Hi, I have a hopefully quick question. I'm writing a Pass that needs >> to >> see a whole module at a time and keep some state, so I subclassed >> Pass. >> However, I want to be able to see the Loops in each Function. Roughly, > > ok. > >>

On Thu, 5 Aug 2004, Michael McCracken wrote: > > You're right that FunctionPass's are not supposed to have state > > (something that many people overlook :) ), however, for now, nothing > > will break if it does have state, and this is really the only way > > around this. > > I'm not sure if I can do this. The pass I'm writing is writing info >

On Tue, 30 May 2006, Silken Tiger wrote: > Everthing now compiles fine, but when running llc with invoking my own backend > derived from the cbackend i get the following error: > namespace llvm { > class MParSchedule : public BasicBlockPass { > public: > This pass has been tested as optimization pass with opt, and everything worked > in this

ether zhhb wrote: > hi John, > > sorry for reply so late. > > On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 10:38 PM, John Criswell <criswell at uiuc.edu > <mailto:criswell at uiuc.edu>> wrote: > > Devang Patel wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 6:41 PM, ether zhhb > <etherzhhb at gmail.com <mailto:etherzhhb at gmail.com>> wrote: > >

Devang Patel wrote: > On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 6:41 PM, ether zhhb <etherzhhb at gmail.com> wrote: > > >> that's because FunctionPass implement the "addLowerLevelRequiredPass" >> function, but others not. >> >> so, is there any special reason that only "addLowerLevelRequiredPass" is >> allow? >> >> > >

hi John, sorry for reply so late. On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 10:38 PM, John Criswell <criswell at uiuc.edu> wrote: > Devang Patel wrote: > >> On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 6:41 PM, ether zhhb <etherzhhb at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >>> that's because FunctionPass implement the "addLowerLevelRequiredPass" >>> function, but others

Well, do you have a patch that enables the new pass manager that we can land then? To be more serious: 1) I don't even know how to run those passes using the new pass manager even if it where enabled by default. I guess that I'm supposed to use -passes. Is there a syntax description for that option somewhere? How do I for example run -die? 2) "Use the new pass manager" does

Hi Hal, I add a function named "vectorizeBasicBlock" which allow users to perform basic block vectoirzation inside their pass. But i am not sure whether i missed something as no one use the function right now (But it will be used by Polly sometimes later[1]). In addition, we (tobi and me) also want to make the vectorizer being configured command line flags. To achieve this, we are