similar to: [LLVMdev] Conflicting passes?

On Jun 29, 2010, at 9:59 AM, Will Dietz wrote: > Hi all, > > While working on a loadable Alias Analysis module pass, I'm running > into the following issue: > > I'm finding my pass queried for results after it has had > 'releaseMemory' called on it and its dependencies, but before > runOnModule is called again (on my pass or its deps). As you might >

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)

Hi all, While working on a loadable Alias Analysis module pass, I'm running into the following issue: I'm finding my pass queried for results after it has had 'releaseMemory' called on it and its dependencies, but before runOnModule is called again (on my pass or its deps). As you might expect, this makes my pass rather unhappy (and I think correctly so). This happens with LICM

Hi R friends,   I'm still studying S4 classes and I have a question about slot assignment. Why would I have to use a special setter method [example 2 below] if I can assign data to a slot directly when I call new() [example 1 below]?   ## first way to do it (the idiosyncratic way?) setClass(Class = "TestClass", representation = representation(myDf = "data.frame"))

LLVM 2.0 is done! Download it here: http://llvm.org/releases/ or view the release notes: http://llvm.org/releases/2.0/docs/ReleaseNotes.html LLVM 2.0 is a great release in many ways. It includes a wide range of new features, new optimizations, better codegen, and new targets. We were also able to signficantly revise several core aspects of the LLVM IR and design (such as the type system

Hello,   I am trying to write some code that dumps R objects to the harddisk in a binary format so they can be quickly re-used later. Goal is to save time. The objects may be quite large (e.g. classes for a GUI). I was thinking that save() and load() would be suitable for this (until now I only thought it could be used for 'real' data, e.g. matrices, data.frames etc), but I am hoping any

'lo, all, Is there some (possibly undocumented?) way that I can pattern-match on a specified number of repeating digits? (Something similar to regular expressions' {}) Here's an example: let's say I have a string of things that need to be done for both extensions 233 and 255. I can either... A) Repeat the exact same code for both extensions, like so: exten =>

Hi R experts,   The fix() function canbe used to edit normal functions. I would like to know whether it's also possible to use something similar to edit a method of an S4 class. In other words, is there a fix-like function that allows me to edit method definitions without having to go back to the source code?   setGeneric (name="doStuff",def =

Hi, > On Tue, 2 May 2006, Domagoj D wrote: > > Why are these two passes conflicting: UnifyFunctionExitNodes and LowerSwitch? > > Because they invalidate each other. Neither preserves the other. > > -Chris I thought so. However, it's not clear to me why "preservation" is required at all? That's just an optimization. The PassManager should be able to run

Hello, I have a patch to DSA you may be interested in. I thought I'd post this to llvmdev so it will be archived and googeable in case others need it, even if you decide to not merge this into mainline :-) Here are the highlights: * I refactored StdLibDataStructures::processFunction into processFunction and processCallSite to remove a lot of copy/pasted code. I also moved the libAction

Hi, > On Wed, 3 May 2006, Domagoj D wrote: > > I thought so. However, it's not clear to me why "preservation" is > > required at all? > > That's just an optimization. The PassManager should be able to > > run passes with > > interdependencies by serializing them (for example in the order as they were > > added to the queue). > >

Hello all, I've followed the example in https://github.com/CompilerTeaching/SimplePass/blob/master/SimplePass.cc in order to create a custom pass. The pass needs to be added before any transformation, so I used EP_EarlyAsPossible extension point to register it. Furthermore, I need to access to every GlobalVariable in the IR, so my pass has to be a ModulePass, like this: struct MyPass :

Hi Everyone, It is getting to be that time again. I've scoured llvm-commits and collected a list of some of the major features we've developed since the last status update (from Feb 21). Please take a look and send me (off list) additions, feedback, corrections, etc. As usual, if I missed something, it's probably because there is such a huge amount of stuff happening,

On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 1:41 PM, Dan Gohman <gohman at apple.com> wrote: > My best guess is that the problem is that loopsimplify (Canonicalize > natural loops) doesn't preserve DSAA. It preserves AliasAnalysis, but as > docs/AliasAnalysis.html now mentions, this doesn't actually do anything. > And DSAA clobbers loopsimplify, because the pass manager can't > keep a

Hello, I got a strange result when I used alias analysis DSAA, can you tell what is wrong? 1. The following is the primary body of my pass "fps.cpp": AliasAnalysis *AA = &getAnalysis<AliasAnalysis>(); AliasSetTracker AST(*AA); for (Module::iterator fi = M.begin(), fe = M.end(); fi != fe; ++fi ) for (Function::iterator bi = fi->begin(), be = fi->end(); bi

On 8/29/07, Domagoj Babic <babic.domagoj at gmail.com> wrote: > Seung, > > On 8/25/07, Chris Lattner <sabre at nondot.org> wrote: > > Ok. Note that LLVM can represent irreducible loops. You can handle > > this through code duplication. > > -Chris > > > If you are willing to invest more effort into a more complicated analysis, > in many cases you

Hi, Probably some of the leaks Valgrind reports are spurious, but the numbers seem to be significant enough to demand some attention: ==10132== LEAK SUMMARY: ==10132== definitely lost: 15,624 bytes in 558 blocks. ==10132== indirectly lost: 44,548 bytes in 1,591 blocks. ==10132== possibly lost: 37,576 bytes in 98 blocks. ==10132== still reachable: 1,336,876 bytes in 1,364 blocks.

Daniel, On 8/30/07, Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org> wrote: > On 8/29/07, Domagoj Babic <babic.domagoj at gmail.com> wrote: > > Seung, > > > > On 8/25/07, Chris Lattner <sabre at nondot.org> wrote: > > > Ok. Note that LLVM can represent irreducible loops. You can handle > > > this through code duplication. > > > -Chris >

I can use the interfaces of AliasAnalysis in my pass, but how to specify the underlaying pass of AliasAnalysis is DSAA? Thanks. Xia ______________________________________ ע������30��������䣨 http://mail.sina.com.cn/chooseMode.html �� =================================================================== 15��HPѸ�۱ʼDZ���ǧԪ,����ǧԪ������� (http://ad4.sina.com.cn/wx/ads/hpzhui823.html)

Seung, On 8/25/07, Chris Lattner <sabre at nondot.org> wrote: > Ok. Note that LLVM can represent irreducible loops. You can handle > this through code duplication. > -Chris If you are willing to invest more effort into a more complicated analysis, in many cases you can even avoid code duplication. See this paper for details: @inproceedings{erosa94taming, author = {Ana M.