similar to: [LLVMdev] alias analysis

Ryan's second question should be more generally phrased for the entire AliasAnalysis interface, not just DSA: will it work to ask alias queries or mod/ref queries for a pair of pointers or a pair of instructions in two different functions? --Vikram http://www.cs.uiuc.edu/~vadve http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu/ On Oct 16, 2006, at 1:45 PM, Chris Lattner wrote: > On Mon, 16 Oct 2006, Ryan

On Mon, 16 Oct 2006, Ryan M. Lefever wrote: > Since Data Structure alias analysis inherits from ModulePass rather than > FunctionPass, does that mean that it performs interprocedural alias > analysis? yes. > Further, if I compare pointers from two different functions, > will I sometimes get a NoAlias response. Don't do that :). That's probably a bug in DSA, but fixing it

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

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

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

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

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. >

add -basicaa to your command line :) On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 7:15 AM, Willy WOLFF <willy.mh.wolff at gmail.com> wrote: > I play a bit more with MemoryDependenceAnalysis by wrapping my pass, and > call explicitely BasicAliasAnalysis. Its still using No Alias Analysis. > > How can I let MemoryDependenceAnalysis use BasicAliasAnalysis? > > Please, find attached my pass. >

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>.

As a follow up, if I first convert x.bc to a c file using llc -march=c -o x.c x.bc, and then I use normal gcc to convert x.c to an executable, f() remains a global symbol. Is llvm-nm incorrectly converting the global symbols to local symbols? Ryan M. Lefever wrote: > I have a bitcode file x.bc. When I run llmv-nm on x.bc, it shows that a > function f(), that I've written, is

Hi, I try to use MemoryDependenceAnalysis in a pass to analyse a simple function: void fct (int *restrict*restrict M, int *restrict*restrict L) { S1: M[1][1] = 1; S2: L[2][2] = 2; } When I iterate over MemoryDependenceAnalysis on the S2 statement, I get the load instruction for the first depth of the array, that’s ok. But I get also the load and store for the S1 statement. I assume the

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." I'm a little confused by that. It was my understanding that if pass X required

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

On Fri, 2007-04-06 at 14:27 -0500, Ryan M. Lefever wrote: > Is a PR a bug report on the bugzilla database? Yes, so named because of the URL translation. I.e. http://llvm.org/PR123 takes you to bugzilla bug 123. PR == Problem Report. > I am also running > bugpoint to see if that yields anything. Okay, good. That might turn up something useful. If you suspect its a bug, please file

Is a PR a bug report on the bugzilla database? I am also running bugpoint to see if that yields anything. Reid Spencer wrote: > Hi Ryan, > > On Fri, 2007-04-06 at 13:34 -0500, Ryan M. Lefever wrote: > >>I am running the following llvm-ld command to produce native code: >> >>llvm-ld -native -o code.exe code.bc -lm >> >>However, I am getting the

This has been reported. http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=1317 On 4/10/07, Ryan M. Lefever <lefever at crhc.uiuc.edu> wrote: > > I checked out llvm from cvs & llvm-gcc from svn last night and again > tonight. Each time they compiled and installed fine. After installing > them, I recompiled compiler transforms I had written for opt. opt seems > to load the my

I don't follow what you mean - gcc doesn't ignore const and llvm doesn't deviate from gcc nor from the relevant language standards. Note that if you declare a global as const that we do capture this in the ir - what specifically do you want? Please provide an example. -Chris http://nondot.org/sabre http://llvm.org On Aug 14, 2007, at 11:58 PM, "Ryan M. Lefever"

How do I acquire that version of DSA that you've updated to mainline cvs? Do I still check out llvm-poolalloc, or is there a way to only check out DSA? Patrick Meredith wrote: > I updated dsa to mainline cvs. Poolalloc is broken, however. > > On Mar 6, 2007, at 3:39 AM, Ryan M. Lefever wrote: > >> What versions of llvm and llvm-poolalloc should I check out of cvs, in