similar to: [LLVMdev] New PassManager

On Jun 21, 2007, at 4:13 PM, Dan Gohman wrote: > Right now, addPassesToEmitFile requires a FunctionPassManager. If I'm > working with code that uses a plain PassManager and want it to > generate > code, are there any options better than doing this: That's what FPPassManager does (include/llvm/PassManagers.h) . Function pass manager itself is a module level pass.

On Jul 27, 2007, at 3:39 PM, David Greene wrote: > On Friday 27 July 2007 15:15, Devang Patel wrote: > >> Now, if pass sequence is - ModuleLevelPass A, FunctionLevelPass B, >> ModuleLevelPass D, FunctionLevelPass C then >> >> For each Module >> run ModuleLevelPass A >> for each function in this module >> run FunctionLevelPass B >> run

Ok, thanks! I'm copying llvmdev again because others had asked about this as well. --Vikram http://www.cs.uiuc.edu/~vadve http://llvm.org/ On Jan 29, 2008, at 4:48 PM, Devang Patel wrote: > > On Jan 29, 2008, at 2:40 PM, Vikram S. Adve wrote: > >> Devang, >> >> I had asked earlier what the message about "lower level analysis >> info" meant.

Devang, I read Chris's notes so I got all this information there already. My comments were in response to that. --Vikram http://www.cs.uiuc.edu/~vadve http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu/ On Nov 7, 2006, at 12:34 PM, Devang Patel wrote: > Hi Vikram, > > On Nov 7, 2006, at 10:19 AM, Vikram Adve wrote: > >> Chris and Devang, >> >> Before you implement the

On Sep 19, 2008, at 4:03 PM, David Greene wrote: >> Well, one of the domiantor info interface is >> bool dominates(Instruction *A, Instruction *B); >> This will return invalid results. So yes, the info is dirty. > > Not right now it isn't. Right now dominators simply iterates through > instructions. Aha... OK. > In my proposed scheme, it would be dirty only

On Thu, Jun 21, 2007 at 04:37:14PM -0700, Devang Patel wrote: > > On Jun 21, 2007, at 4:13 PM, Dan Gohman wrote: > > > Right now, addPassesToEmitFile requires a FunctionPassManager. If I'm > > working with code that uses a plain PassManager and want it to > > generate > > code, are there any options better than doing this: > > That's what

Chris and Devang, Before you implement the LoopPassManager class, I'd like to discuss this a little bit. I have a suggestion and a question; we can discuss this now or later, as you wish: 1. The LoopPassManager might become much simpler if the more complex loop passes are given control over how they iterate over the loops, rather always rely on the manager to enumerate the loops in

On Friday 19 September 2008 18:16, Devang Patel wrote: > > No way I'm going to go through every Pass, check if it manipulates > > instructions, and update the numbering info if it does. I'd rather > > have > > dominators check whenther numbering is up-to-date and update the > > numbering > > itself if it's not, on-the-fly. > > Well, then pass

On Jul 26, 2007, at 11:25 AM, David Greene wrote: > On Thursday 26 July 2007 11:48, Devang Patel wrote: > >> If in register allocator you have requested another higher level pass >> after LiveVariableAnalysis pass then this may happen. > > Can you explain why this is so? I would assume that I could > declare Pass > dependencies in any order. The manual certainly

On Jan 28, 2008, at 4:27 PM, David Greene wrote: > I've never been able to figure this one out: > > llvm/lib/VMCore/PassManager.cpp:938: virtual void > llvm::PMDataManager::addLowerLevelRequiredPass(llvm::Pass*, > llvm::Pass*): > Assertion `0 && "Unable to handle Pass that requires lower level > Analysis > pass"' failed. > > In the past,

On Jan 28, 2008, at 6:38 PM, Devang Patel wrote: >> >> So what does this assert mean, exactly? > > In simple word, pass manager is unable to fulfill your request. Can you explain this one in complex words then? :^) I've encountered the same problem. --Vikram -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

HI Devang, Initially I had not added this pass to the group and I got this error regarding PassManager. I added the pass to group just to check whether that removes the error or not... I have removed it again. Is there any other registration required to configure pass manager for the pass? --Kapil On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 2:37 PM, Devang Patel <dpatel at apple.com> wrote: > > On

On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 6:54 AM, Andreas Neustifter <astifter-llvm at gmx.at> wrote: > > If I use  AU.addRequired<ProfileInfo>() in SelectionDAGISel.cpp the > wrong ProfileInfo is used. It uses the "No ProfileInfo" implementation > if ProfileInfo but not the one from ProfileInfoLoaderPass. (Which is > immediately discarded after creation.) > You need to

Dear All, I had a similar error back in December; there are a number of email exchanges about it on llvmdev in December 2007; a search through the archives might shed some light on my PassManager does this. If you're updating a pass from pre-LLVM 2.0 to post-LLVM 2.0, you should be aware that the pass manager in LLVM 2.x is used only for scheduling dependent *analysis* passes. If you

Hi all! On 11/20/2009 06:29 PM, Devang Patel wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 6:54 AM, Andreas Neustifter wrote: >> >> If I use AU.addRequired<ProfileInfo>() in SelectionDAGISel.cpp the >> wrong ProfileInfo is used. It uses the "No ProfileInfo" implementation >> if ProfileInfo but not the one from ProfileInfoLoaderPass. (Which is >>

Hi, Devang Patel wrote: > On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 9:03 AM, Andreas Neustifter > <astifter-llvm at gmx.at> wrote: > >> Okay, so the ProfileInfoLoader is working, but when I examine the executions more closely I see that the ProfileInfo generated by the ProfileInfoLoader is immediately discarded, when the SelectionDAGISel kicks in the "No Profile Info"-Implementation

Hi All, I am planning to re-implement PassManager in llvm 2.0. The goal is to address http://nondot.org/sabre/LLVMNotes/Inliner-PassManager.txt and http://nondot.org/sabre/LLVMNotes/LoopOptimizerNotes.txt and other crazy ideas Chris has. Current implementation of PassManager is very complex. Initially I attempted to update it to address above notes but realized that redoing

On Jul 25, 2007, at 3:15 PM, David A. Greene wrote: > Can anyone explain what this means? > > llvm/include/llvm/PassManagers.h:232: virtual void > llvm::PMDataManager::addLowerLevelRequiredPass(llvm::Pass*, > llvm::Pass*): > Assertion `0 && "Unable to handle Pass that requires lower level > Analysis > pass"' failed. In simple words, pass manager

On Wednesday 25 July 2007 17:29, Devang Patel wrote: > In simple words, pass manager is not able to schedule passes in > requested order. Pass manager is not able to find required pass at the same > level (module, function, loop etc..) or higher level compared current pass. Ok, that gives me some ideas. I didn't understand what "level" means. > What is Pass and

On Jul 26, 2007, at 8:01 AM, David Greene wrote: > On Wednesday 25 July 2007 21:35, David A. Greene wrote: > >>> What is Pass and RequiredPass when this assertion hits ? >> >> I haven't had a chance to explore too deeply yet (the stack trace >> doesn't >> give any useful information) but I suspect Pass is the register >> allocator >>