similar to: [LLVMdev] modulepass requiring a functionpass

Hi, I've written a FunctionPass that happens to be read-only (preserving): It doesn't modify the code in any way; it just does some analysis and dumps out the results for each function by overriding FunctionPass::print. I now need to make some changes to the pass, and these changes will mean that the results cannot be known until all functions have been visited. So there's

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 C's runOnSCC() method will have executed on all SCCs before F's doFinalization() method?

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

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

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

Trevor Harmon wrote: > On Jul 22, 2010, at 2:05 PM, John Criswell wrote: > > >> If you write your pass as a ModulePass, then you can iterate over the >> functions in any order that you want. >> > > I had considered that, but my FunctionPass depends on other passes > processing the functions first: > Two things to consider: 1) The PassManager

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

On Jul 22, 2010, at 2:05 PM, John Criswell wrote: > If you write your pass as a ModulePass, then you can iterate over the > functions in any order that you want. I had considered that, but my FunctionPass depends on other passes processing the functions first: void MyPass::getAnalysisUsage(AnalysisUsage &AU) const { AU.addRequired<UnifyFunctionExitNodes>();

John Criswell wrote: > Trevor Harmon wrote: >> On Jul 22, 2010, at 2:05 PM, John Criswell wrote: >> >> >>> If you write your pass as a ModulePass, then you can iterate over the >>> functions in any order that you want. >>> >> >> I had considered that, but my FunctionPass depends on other passes >> processing the functions first:

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

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 am trying to write a ModulePass which requires PostDominator sets for every function in the module. Now finding post dominators is a function pass. The link on the llvm.org website says that : "Currently it is illegal for a ModulePass<http://llvm.org/docs/WritingAnLLVMPass.html#ModulePass>to require a FunctionPass <http://llvm.org/docs/WritingAnLLVMPass.html#FunctionPass>.

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

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

Hi, I have a FunctionPass that requires a ModulePass using addRequiredById(). When I start opt it infloops somewhere in PMDataManager::findAnalysisPass. Should I open a bug, or is this a known issue (i.e. I am doing something wrong)? Is there a workaround? My modulepass just assigns unique numbers to basicblocks (like StableBasicBlockNumbering, but unique per Module) I could do that with a

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 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 ,

Hi, Devang. Thank you for your reply. But in my case, my ModulePass requires another FunctionPass (e.g. MemoryDependenceAnalysis) rather than the opposite direction. Is it also limited? - gauss Devang Patel-2 wrote: > > 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.

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

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Qingan Li <ww345ww at gmail.com> Date: 2011/5/30 Subject: To: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu Hi, I wrote an analysis pass, myPass, inherited from both ModulePass and ProfileInfo, and this pass requires the CallGraph, i.e., * class myPass : public ModulePass, public ProfileInfo { ...};* * void myPass::getAnalysisUsage(AnalysisUsage &AU) const