similar to: [LLVMdev] How to get the PostDominanceFrontier?

Hi, Chris I get a new PostDominanceFrontier class by combinating the code of PostDominanceSet/PostDominanceTree/PostDominanceFrontier FunctionPasses. It works very well. BTW: Why the PostDominanceFrontier FunctionPasses does not use the formal argument in runOnFunction(Function &)? Does it gets the Function from PassManager? Thank you. Xia >On Thu, 9 Sep 2004, xia_yimin wrote: >

Hi all, Does anyone know how to recreate the DominanceFronter and PostDominanceFrontier structures using the API of the latest release? To my knowledge, these are needed to implement a PRE pass (as done in the past<https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/tags/RELEASE_13/lib/Transforms/Scalar/PRE.cpp>), but they were removed a while ago for efficiency reasons. Is there a better way to

Hi, I'm not able to answer your question. I'm wondering if you can create your own if it is just your own hobby project, or a project that you don't have to commit to the main repository. Creating DominatorFrontier seems to be expensive. However, if you are using bit-vector to represent a basic-block-set, I guess it can be done in linear time in practice. Following is the

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

A while ago I reported a bug in the computation of the post-dominance frontier (PDF). I submitted it as http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=1069, and it is now marked as a duplicate of http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=1098, which is still an open bug. I needed the PDF to compute control dependencies for code on which I'm working. I was not familiar with the algorithm used in LLVM

Is there a reason this is better than the modified algorithm created by Ferrante? It looks like yours has as bad a worst case time bound in reality. That is, the algorithm runs in O(sum of the size of all the dominance frontiers). http://www.cs.rice.edu/~keith/Embed/dom.pdf See figure 5. It will only touch nodes actually in the dominance frontier. This is what GCC uses. There are actually real

On Fri, 20 Apr 2007, Ryan M. Lefever wrote: > Please advise on how I should proceed. Even though, as I mentioned, the > code does not follow the LLVM coding standards and does not adhere to > the llvm::PostDominanceFrontier interface, I figured it would be better > to a working PDF than to not have it. Perhaps if you don't want to > insert it into the regular LLVM code base,

On Sun, Nov 3, 2013 at 1:02 AM, Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org> wrote: > Is there a reason this is better than the modified algorithm created > by Ferrante? > It looks like yours has as bad a worst case time bound in reality. > That is, the algorithm runs in O(sum of the size of all the dominance > frontiers). > > http://www.cs.rice.edu/~keith/Embed/dom.pdf >

On Sun, Nov 3, 2013 at 1:02 AM, Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org> wrote: > As for a "better" way to implement PRE, it depends on what algorithm > you want to use. If you just want to write a PRE pass, that's easy > enough without dominance frontiers. > I simply want to write a PRE pass to get a better understanding of the transformation. Any tips on where to

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 Sun, Nov 3, 2013 at 9:19 AM, Christopher Wood <christopherwood07 at gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Nov 3, 2013 at 1:02 AM, Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org> wrote: >> >> As for a "better" way to implement PRE, it depends on what algorithm >> you want to use. If you just want to write a PRE pass, that's easy >> enough without dominance

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? -- View this message in context: http://llvm.1065342.n5.nabble.com/Control-Dependence-Graph-builder-tp56687p56689.html Sent

Hi Tanya, I was spelunking through bugzilla and ran into an old mailing list link http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2006-January/005137.html (found in PR36). I expect this link to be broken since our servers are not on that domain. No big deal, just change it to lists.llvm.org: http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvmdev/2006-January/005137.html Looks like that doesn't exist, as the

On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 2:37 PM, Tanya Lattner <tanyalattner at llvm.org> wrote: > > On Jul 21, 2016, at 11:59 PM, Sean Silva <chisophugis at gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Tanya, > > I was spelunking through bugzilla and ran into an old mailing list link > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2006-January/005137.html > (found in PR36). > > I expect this

Hi Arsen, I wrote a pass that computes a control dependence graph as described in Ferrante et al's "The Program Dependence Graph and Its Use in Optimization." It is available at https://github.com/thinkmoore/llvm-analysis. Cheers, Scott On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 5:04 PM, John Criswell <criswell at illinois.edu>wrote: > On 4/12/13 3:19 PM, Arsen wrote: > >> Thank

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, here's what I want: virtual bool run(Module &M){ // do stuff... for (Module::iterator I = M.begin(), E = M.end(); I != E; ++I){ if(! I->isExternal())

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 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 >

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)

Hello All, I am interested in Control Dependence Graph building using the CFG and Dominance Frontier provided by corresponding passes. Just wandering whether LLVM provides some kind of pass or builder which will generate the Control Dependence Graph? Thanks, Arsen -- View this message in context: http://llvm.1065342.n5.nabble.com/Control-Dependence-Graph-builder-tp56687.html Sent from the