similar to: [LLVMdev] llvm passes

On Fri, 22 Sep 2006, Ryan M. Lefever wrote: > In the instructions for writing LLVM passes, it says "[c]urrently it is > illegal for a ModulePass to require a FunctionPass. This is because > there is only one instance of the FunctionPass object ever created, thus > nowhere to store information for all of the functions in the program at > the same time." Right. >

So, am I correct that the implication of what you're saying is that if pass X requires pass Y, then pass Y does not necessarily run to completion on every component of a program, before pass X runs. Furthermore, if those passes X and Y are both function passes, then when pass X runs on function F, the last function Y will have run on is function F. Chris Lattner wrote: > On Fri, 22

I followed what you said and called verifyModule() with the AbortProcessAction option. verifyModule() returns false, but does not abort and does not print out any information about what caused the verification to fail. Chris Lattner wrote: > On Wed, 21 Feb 2007, Ryan M. Lefever wrote: >> I am writing an interprocedural compiler pass. Because the passneeds >> information from a

I also tried iterating through the functions of the module and calling verifyFunction(), which also returns false, but does not cause an abort or report anything to stderr about what caused the verification to fail. From the doxygen for verifyFunction() and verifyModule(), it seems like they both should print information to stderr if the verification fails and should abort opt if

I am writing an interprocedural compiler pass. Because the passneeds information from a FunctionPass, e.g., the post-dominance frontier (PDF), and because a ModulePass is not permitted to require a FunctionPass, I am forced to make my pass a FunctionPass and do majority of its work in the doFinalization() method. When I run "opt -mypass -verify -o code2.bc code1.bc" I get no

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

Since Data Structure alias analysis inherits from ModulePass rather than FunctionPass, does that mean that it performs interprocedural alias analysis? Further, if I compare pointers from two different functions, will I sometimes get a NoAlias response. Regards, Ryan -- Ryan M. Lefever [http://www.ews.uiuc.edu/~lefever]

So I got very mixed results. With the CallGraphSCCPass, both `addRequired<DominatorTreeWrapperPass>` and `addRequired<MemoryDependenceAnalysis>` fail at runtime. The LLVM core has just two CallGraphSCCPasses and neither uses neither analyses, so it's hard to find a valid example. I transformed the pass into a ModulePass, using scc_iterator as shown in CGPassManager to process

I think I misread the doxygen. verifyFunction & verifyModule return false if no errors are detected. However, my question now becomes why does the code produced by my transform pass verification, but it causes an assertion failure in the byte reader when it (the code produced by my transform) is passed to another invocation of opt? Ryan M. Lefever wrote: > I also tried iterating

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>(); > ...... >

I have added -debug-pass=Structure, and found the following: ModulePass Manager X Analysis Unnamed pass: implement Pass::getPassName() FunctionPass Manager Module Verifier Bitcode Writer Pass Arguments: -x -y -z FunctionPass Manager X Analysis Y Construction Z Construction Even for getAnalysis<Y>(*F) and getAnalysis<Z>(&F), all the passes X,

On Wed, 21 Feb 2007, Ryan M. Lefever wrote: > I am writing an interprocedural compiler pass. Because the passneeds > information from a FunctionPass, e.g., the post-dominance frontier > (PDF), and because a ModulePass is not permitted to require a > FunctionPass, I am forced to make my pass a FunctionPass and do majority > of its work in the doFinalization() method. ok > When

Dear All, If I have a ModulePass that requires a FunctionPass, and I include a line like the following: <variable> = &getAnalysis<TheFunctionPass>(*Function); ... will the PassManager blindly re-run the FunctionPass each time the ModulePass requests it, or does it use the Pass dependency information to re-run the FunctionPass only when necessary. -- John T.

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

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 Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 3:35 AM, gauss<gausszhch at gmail.com> wrote: > 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 ,

Dear John, First thing, the 3 loops in Densemap are all " Loop at depth 1 containing: %1<header><exiting>,%3,%5<latch> " in the 3 functions. The dense map is in a ImmutablePass. I got it in FunctionPass and tried insert the information in this FunctionPass. So to turn the FunctionPass to ModulePass may be a better idea? Another interesting thing: if just before

Hello, I am trying to add some thing into LLVM, while I encountered some problems. So my situation is that I have some information W, some transform passes may change it, after these passes, I need the new W. What I did is to create an analysis pass similar to scalar-evolution or loopinfo, I can get the information by using getAnalysis<W>(); and preserve this information W by using

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

Shuguang Feng wrote: >> What does "llc -debug-pass=Structure" say? Is the ProfileLoaderPass >> really the last pass to touch the ProfileInfo before you are using it? > > Below is the sequence of passes that I see. Although the > NoProfileInfo pass is being run, it should be subsequently overridden > by ProfileInfoLoaderPass (LoaderPass) correct? Yes. >