similar to: [LLVMdev] Minor change to Pass API: use ModulePass now

Hi Devang, You recently mentioned that the pass manager now allows a ModulePass to require a FunctionPass. I just tried it but ran into errors. Could you please take a look to see if I did anything wrong? Thanks! Basically I changed the HelloWorld sample pass to be a ModulePass and tried to use the LoopInfo pass inside the runOnModule routine. See below for the source code and error messages.

"A module pass can use function level passes (e.g. dominators) using getAnalysis interfacegetAnalysis<DominatorTree>(Function), if the function pass does not require any module passes." http://llvm.org/docs/WritingAnLLVMPass.html In your case, A module pass (ModPass2) is trying tu use function level pass (FunPass1) which uses module level pass (ModPass1). This is not

Having a ModulePass that requires a FunctionPass that in turn requires another ModulePass results in an assertion being fired. Is this expected behavior (that seems to be undocumented), or a bug? Specifically, the following code will emit the assertion: [VMCore/PassManager.cpp:1597: virtual void llvm::ModulePass::assignPassManager(llvm::PMStack&, llvm::PassManagerType): Assertion

Hi, all: I wanted to use a FunctionPass (e.g. *MemoryDependenceAnalysis*) in a ModulePass, and then I used the method "getAnalysis<* MemoryDependenceAnalysis*>(llvm::Function *)" described at http://llvm.org/docs/WritingAnLLVMPass.html#ModulePass to get the FunctionPass. But , it still crashed when I invoked this pass in tool 'opt'. However, if I change my pass to

Good to know. I was referencing a local copy of 2.3 docs which didn't include the "does not require any module passes" statement. It appears the docs were changed two days before 2.4 was released in November. I suppose I should update my docs more often. Are there any plans to change this restriction, or any best practices to get similar behavior? Since immutable pass is a subclass

John Criswell wrote: > ambika wrote: >> Here is getAnalysisUsage() i am using, >> >> void getAnalysisUsage(AnalysisUsage&AU) const { >> AU.setPreservesAll(); >> AU.addRequired<DominatorTree>(); >> } >> >> and then I use it as, >> >> >> bool ptrTest::runOnModule(Module&M) { >> >>

On 6/15/11 6:46 PM, Alexey Bakhirkin wrote: > Hi. I'm trying to implement a module pass which can be dynamically > loaded by `opt` (against up-to-date llvm from svn). > Despite what the tutorial > (http://llvm.org/docs/WritingAnLLVMPass.html) states in my module pass > I cannot perform getAnalysis and fetch the function pass result. > When trying to do so `opt` fails with the

Hi. I'm trying to implement a module pass which can be dynamically loaded by `opt` (against up-to-date llvm from svn). Despite what the tutorial (http://llvm.org/docs/WritingAnLLVMPass.html) states in my module pass I cannot perform getAnalysis and fetch the function pass result. When trying to do so `opt` fails with the following mesage: [***@*** ***]$ opt -load

Thanks, John. There were a couple of function declarations in the module, and 'getAnalysis' failed for those. By the way, what do you mean by "in older versions of LLVM"? I'm quite sure I was using the latest llvm trunk. 2011/6/16 John Criswell <criswell at cs.uiuc.edu>: > On 6/15/11 6:46 PM, Alexey Bakhirkin wrote: >> Hi. I'm trying to implement a module

On Dec 18, 2007, at 10:55 AM, John Criswell wrote: > Dear All, > > The attached code (which is a contrived test case) hits the following > assertion: > > test: > /home/vadve/criswell/src/llvm22/include/llvm/PassAnalysisSupport.h: > 226: > AnalysisType& llvm::Pass::getAnalysisID(const llvm::PassInfo*, > llvm::Function&) [with AnalysisType = Pass1]: Assertion

ambika wrote: > Here is getAnalysisUsage() i am using, > > void getAnalysisUsage(AnalysisUsage &AU) const { > AU.setPreservesAll(); > AU.addRequired<DominatorTree>(); > } > > and then I use it as, > > > bool ptrTest::runOnModule(Module &M) { > > DominatorTree &DT = getAnalysis<DominatorTree>(); > ...... >

On 3/3/11 3:09 PM, Wenbin Zhang wrote: > Hi all, > I tried to have a LoopInfo object in a function pass, add > addRequired<LoopInfo> in getAnalysisUsage, and then use > getAnalysis<LoopInfo> in runOnFunction(). It worked OK. > Now I want to have a module pass to traverse the functions, and > similarly I want to have to loop information of the functions. When I >

I think this assertion failure may be caused by the getAnalysisUsage(). Mine is like the following: class myclass : public ModulePass{ ... virtual void getAnalysisUsage(AnalysisUsage &AU) const { AU.addRequired<LoopInfo>(); } ... } Is it enough? Thanks! Best, --Wenbin ----- Original Message ----- From: Wenbin Zhang To: John Criswell Cc: llvmdev at

I have a ModulePass, which we'll call MP, that generates a dependency graph for an entire program. I want MP to require the UnifyFunctionExitNodes pass, which is a FunctionPass. Since its not possible to make a ModulePass depend on a FunctionPass, is my only choice to make MP a FunctionPass in which the runOnFunction() routine does nothing, and the doFinalization routine does all the

This gives me: Assertion failed: (0 && "Unable to find on the fly pass"), function getOnTheFlyPass, file PassManager.cpp #include "llvm/Module.h" #include "llvm/Analysis/MemoryDependenceAnalysis.h" #include "llvm/Support/raw_ostream.h" using namespace llvm; struct Hello: public FunctionPass { public: static char ID; Hello(): FunctionPass(ID) {

Hi, I am trying to write an LLVM project, using LLVM 2.9. My passes are defined as follows, where the Pass2 requires Pass1. namespace llvm { class BaseClass : public ModulePass { // Name for printing const char* printname; protected: BaseClass(char id, const char* name) : ModulePass(id),printname(name){ } }; class Pass1 : public BaseClass { public: static char ID; Pass1() :

Thanks John, I modify my code to like this: bool XXX::ModulePass(Module &M){ .... LoopInfo &li = getAnalysis<LoopInfo>(fi); .... } Here fi is a Function* pointing to main(). Now when I run the pass, another error shows up: AnalysisType& llvm::Pass::getAnalysisID(const llvm::PassInfo*, llvm::Function&) [with AnalysisType = llvm::LoopInfo]: Assertion `ResultPass

On Jun 21, 2007, at 4:13 PM, Dan Gohman wrote: > Right now, addPassesToEmitFile requires a FunctionPassManager. If I'm > working with code that uses a plain PassManager and want it to > generate > code, are there any options better than doing this: That's what FPPassManager does (include/llvm/PassManagers.h) . Function pass manager itself is a module level pass.

Guys, What I want to do is to hack global opt pass, which needs ScalarEvolution analysis. However opt crashed saying "opt: /home/xchen/llvm/include/llvm/PassAnalysisSupport.h:242: AnalysisType& llvm::Pass::getAnalysisID(const void*, llvm::Function&) [with AnalysisType = llvm::ScalarEvolution]: Assertion `ResultPass && "Unable to find requested analysis info"'

Larry, On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 4:55 PM, Larry Gritz <lg at larrygritz.com> wrote: > I have a whole slew of questions about optimization passes. Answers to any > or all would be extremely helpful: > > How important are doInitialization/doFinalization? Most of the passes do not use them. > I can't detect any difference if I use them or not. Say, if you are writing