similar to: [LLVMdev] FunctionPass requiring SCCs

Hi Ryan, On 9/29/06, Ryan M. Lefever <lefever at crhc.uiuc.edu> wrote: > I have a FunctionPass F that needs a list of all the SCCs for use in its > doFinalization() method. Let's say I write a CallGraphSCCPass C that > creates an array of all SCCs. Let C be required by F, and let F call > getAnalysis<C>() from its doFinalization() method. Am I guaranteed that >

On Sep 29, 2006, at 2:05 PM, Domagoj Babic wrote: > > Check out scc_* iterators. Also note that the call graph > is not aware of the indirect calls, so you will need to write your > own CG implementation if you need to handle function pointers > soundly. > Chris, is this true? If so, it seems like a bad property for the CallGraphSCCPass framework. --Vikram

On Fri, 29 Sep 2006, Vikram Adve wrote: > On Sep 29, 2006, at 2:05 PM, Domagoj Babic wrote: >> Check out scc_* iterators. Also note that the call graph >> is not aware of the indirect calls, so you will need to write your >> own CG implementation if you need to handle function pointers >> soundly. > Chris, is this true? If so, it seems like a bad property for the

Hello again, First of all, thanks for all the answers =) they really helped a lot =D *Have you verified that some other pass is not adding the function declarations back in after your pass is executed (e.g., by using the -debug-pass=Executions argument to see what passes run after your pass)?* I considered that for a moment, but I realized that wouldn't be possible for two reasons: I

On 5/6/15 11:15 AM, Kuperstein, Michael M wrote: > > I’ve always thought that the only guarantee is that > doFinalization(Module &M) runs after runOnFunction() was executed for > all functions in M, and there’s no guarantee it runs *immediately* after. > > That is, a PM may run a bunch of function passes over each function, > and only then call doFinazliation() for each

Hello there, I'm writing some LLVM passes, and just ran into an interesting situation: now, I don't know if I misunderstood the way doFinalization is supposed to work, but I hope someone could help =) One of the transformations I wrote needed to replace some instructions within the code, so I needed to clean up the code after the process was completed. The pass basically swapped some

On 5/6/15 10:19 AM, Kuperstein, Michael M wrote: > > Hello Cristiano, > > I don’t think doFinalization() is really meant to be used this way. > My understanding is that doInitialization() and doFinalization() are designed specifically for modifying the LLVM IR (otherwise, why would a mutable reference to the Function be provided)? If that is not the case, then there is either a

Hello, I'm writing a Function Pass. This function pass needs access to the CallGraph and CallGraph SCCs. Is there any way I can get CallGraph information without changing my pass to a CallGraphSCCPass ? Thanks, -- Nick Johnson

On 5/10/09, Török Edwin <edwintorok at gmail.com> wrote: > On 2009-05-10 20:11, Nick Johnson wrote: > > Hello, > > > > I'm writing a Function Pass. This function pass needs access to the > > CallGraph and CallGraph SCCs. Is there any way I can get CallGraph > > information without changing my pass to a CallGraphSCCPass ? > > > Does

Hey all, I'm working on adding function attribute propagation to function summaries in the ThinLTO index, and have run into some trouble with ensuring bottom-up traversal when finding the SCCs in the call graph. I'm basing my implementation for the GraphTraits for the ModuleSummaryIndex off the GraphTraits<CallGraph *> implementation (

I ran across an interesting case and wanted to share it. I'm not proposing any particular changes, but the experience seemed interesting to discuss. First, a bit of background. An LLVM Loop models a specific type of cycle in the CFG. Not all cycles are Loops. Many of our optimization transforms are phrased over loops, which means that a non-loop cycle tends to be less well optimized.

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

Is there a way in LLVM , using which I can get Call graph SCCs in reverse post order in a FunctionPass object? -Balpreet -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20060501/f34b3700/attachment.html>

On 2009-05-10 20:11, Nick Johnson wrote: > Hello, > > I'm writing a Function Pass. This function pass needs access to the > CallGraph and CallGraph SCCs. Is there any way I can get CallGraph > information without changing my pass to a CallGraphSCCPass ? Does getAnalysis<CallGraph>() work? But I'm not sure if using a FunctionPass to access Callgraph data is a good

On 2009-05-10 21:18, Nick Johnson wrote: > On 5/10/09, Török Edwin <edwintorok at gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 2009-05-10 20:11, Nick Johnson wrote: >> > Hello, >> > >> > I'm writing a Function Pass. This function pass needs access to the >> > CallGraph and CallGraph SCCs. Is there any way I can get CallGraph >> >

>>> Does getAnalysis<CallGraph>() work? Thanks Edwin, that works! What about the CallGraphSCC ? It looks like one can declare a CallGraphSCCPass, but I don't see any other way to get the SCCs of the call graph. -- Nick Johnson

On Thu, 24 Jun 2004, Vladimir Prus wrote: > I wonder in what cases FunctionPass is better that Pass. For example, > addPassesToEmitAssembly takes PassManger and addPassesToJITCompile takes > FunctionPassManager. Here's a simple way to look at it. Use a Function pass whenever you can. A function pass will always work where a Pass works (it derives from pass as you've noticed),

I wonder in what cases FunctionPass is better that Pass. For example, addPassesToEmitAssembly takes PassManger and addPassesToJITCompile takes FunctionPassManager. Another question is about FunctionPassManager::run(Function&) and FunctionPass(Function&). The former calls the later, which is fine, but the latter looks like this: bool FunctionPass::run(Function &F) { if

Hello, Any help on the following issue will be appreciated. How do I delete files or directories in my first level of directory that is specified as host. Here is an example : rsync -avz --delete ${SOURCE_HOST}:/mlinkfam/extract/sccs/pa/* /mlinkfam/extract/sccs/pa Giving above command I find redundant files or directory not getting deleted from the first level of target directory

Hello, Has anyone written R functions for applying self-controlled case series methods (http://statistics.open.ac.uk/sccs/). In fact only thing needed is to modify glm function to allow absorption of effect. Eg. in Poisson model individual effect is used as factor, but it is considered as nuisance term where parameter estimates are not needed. Could anyone point how absorbing individual