similar to: [LLVMdev] How to get LoopInfo within Pass subclass?

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. > However, when running I'm informed that: > > PassManagerT.h:421: failed assertion

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 Tue, 21 Mar 2006, Michael McCracken wrote: > opt: /home/mmccrack/lens/obj-llvm-darcslocal/../llvm-darcslocal/llvm/lib/VMCore/PassManagerT.h:426: > void llvm::PassManagerT<UnitType>::markPassUsed(const llvm::PassInfo*, > llvm::Pass*) [with UnitType = llvm::Module]: Assertion > `getAnalysisOrNullUp(P) && > dynamic_cast<ImmutablePass*>(getAnalysisOrNullUp(P))

Hi all, Why are these two passes conflicting: UnifyFunctionExitNodes and LowerSwitch? AU.addRequired(LowerSwitchID) works, so does AU.addRequired<unifyFunctionExitNodes>(), but the two together don't... opt: PassManagerT.h:387: void llvm::PassManagerT<Trait>::markPassUsed(const llvm::PassInfo*, llvm::Pass*) [with Trait = llvm::MTraits]: Assertion `getAnalysisOrNullUp(P)

A On 3/21/06, Michael McCracken <michael.mccracken at gmail.com> wrote: > On 3/21/06, Chris Lattner <sabre at nondot.org> wrote: > > On Mon, 20 Mar 2006, Michael McCracken wrote: > > > > > Hi, I'm trying to access an analysis pass from the Inliner pass, and > > > I'm having a lot of trouble getting that to work - I can verify that > >

Dear guys, I need help fixing a little piece of code. I have a pass that I really want to execute after the TwoAddressinstructionPass. But if I write "AU.addRequiredID(TwoAddressInstructionPassID);" in my pass' getAnalysisUsage, I end up getting the infamous: PassManagerT.h:387: failed assertion `getAnalysisOrNullUp(P) &&

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 > 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 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 3/21/06, Chris Lattner <sabre at nondot.org> wrote: > On Mon, 20 Mar 2006, Michael McCracken wrote: > > > Hi, I'm trying to access an analysis pass from the Inliner pass, and > > I'm having a lot of trouble getting that to work - I can verify that > > my pass is loaded and run (it is a dynamically loaded pass that is > > part of an analysisgroup),

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

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: > > > >

On Mon, 9 Aug 2004, Michael McCracken wrote: > 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. Ok. > > We have no problem with people asking questions. :) The PassManager > > is actually do for a rewrite. The current

Dear guys, I have updated my LLVM to the top of CVS, and now I am getting errors like this one below when I write new passes: "llc: PassManagerT.h:387: void llvm::PassManagerT<Trait>::markPassUsed(const llvm::PassInfo*, llvm::Pass*) [with Trait = llvm::FTraits]: Assertion `getAnalysisOrNullUp(P) && dynamic_cast<ImmutablePass*>(getAnalysisOrNullUp(P)) &&

Hi, I have two function passes: AvailOut and HashGVN. AvailOut needs to use HashGVN. And they're built in the same shared object file. But addRequired<HashGVN> fails with this error: # opt -load ../../../build/Release/lib/LLVMGVN.so -hashgvn -availout --debug-pass=Structure <basic.s.bc >basic.out.bc opt: /proj/tbres/shanth/llvm/llvm-1.9/lib/VMCore/PassManagerT.h:387: void

Dear llvm guys, I am trying to add the BreakCriticalEdges pass to my application. I tried to add it to the PNE pass (e.g. PHIElimination.cpp - AU.addRequiredID(BreakCriticalEdgesID); ), but I get this error: llc -f -regalloc=simple Base1Sum.bc -o simple.s ----------------------------------------------- llc: PassManagerT.h:387: void llvm::PassManagerT<Trait>::markPassUsed(const

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

On Aug 9, 2004, at 1:46 PM, Chris Lattner wrote: >> Well, I took a look at it a bit over the weekend. I am probably not >> the >> right person to do the complete rewrite, for instance reworking the >> Pass class hierarchy doesn't sound like something I'd want to do. Just >> getting to this point has been a bit of an education in real C++. > > Ok, fair

OK, I noticed a few problems with my previous email, so I will boil the question down: What I want to do is compile for x86 and ia64 from darwin. I also want to load my own passes into opt and llc. Should I be using llvmc at all here, or should I be doing something like llvmgcc -> gccas -> opt -> llc ? I've given up on the filetype=obj argument, so now the problem is that llc is

Hi, If I do a loop over the basic blocks in a LoopInfo object, is it going to loop over the basic blocks of the loop AND the subloops of the loop or just the BBs of the loop itself? Thanks! -bw