similar to: [LLVMdev] Choosing Alias Analysis

On Aug 9, 2007, at 1:52 PM, David Greene wrote: > So how do I get opt to use Andersens instead of basicaa, for example? Following uses basic alias analysis $ opt -licm foo.bc -disable-output -debug-pass=Structure where as $ opt -anders-aa -licm foo.bc -disable-output -debug-pass=Structure uses Andersens analysis algorithm implementation. - Devang

On Thursday 09 August 2007 17:27, Chris Lattner wrote: > > So what's the right way to do this? There's the regalloc way, which > > invents a whole new class just to register register allocators and > > provide an option for picking one. But alias analysis already uses > > AnalysisGroup so a new class to register alias analysis passes isn't > >

On Thursday 09 August 2007 15:56, Devang Patel wrote: > On Aug 9, 2007, at 1:52 PM, David Greene wrote: > > So how do I get opt to use Andersens instead of basicaa, for example? > > Following uses basic alias analysis > > $ opt -licm foo.bc -disable-output -debug-pass=Structure > > where as > > $ opt -anders-aa -licm foo.bc -disable-output -debug-pass=Structure

On Thu, 9 Aug 2007, David Greene wrote: >> As you've figured out, not all options are exposed by llvm-gcc. You'll >> have to update llvm-gcc. > > So what's the right way to do this? There's the regalloc way, which invents > a whole new class just to register register allocators and provide an option > for picking one. But alias analysis already uses

On Thursday 09 August 2007 16:29, Devang Patel wrote: > On Aug 9, 2007, at 2:22 PM, David Greene wrote: > > A better question to ask is, how do I do this with llvm-gcc? My > > perusal of > > the code doesn't turn up any obvious places for options for alias > > analysis > > are registered. > > As you've figured out, not all options are exposed by

On Friday 10 August 2007 13:54, Devang Patel wrote: > > Or is it sufficient than an Andersen's object is constructed and > > that that > > constitutes "availability?" > > What do you mean by "available" ? You are using quotes :) "Available" as referenced by PassSupport.h: /// RegisterAnalysisGroup - Register a Pass as a member of an

On Friday 10 August 2007 15:12, David Greene wrote: > Perhaps an easier way is to just expose the -simple-register-coalescing > and -conservative-register-coalescing options to the user, but I don't know > how to do that on an individual pass bases. opt just jams then all in with > PassNameParser. PassNameParser.h makes reference to a > FilteredPassNameParser that sounds

On Thu, 9 Aug 2007, David Greene wrote: >> intentionally does not publish all of the llvm options through cc1. We >> can add new options, but that has to be an explicit design decision. We >> do allow you to use some options through -mllvm -foo, but that won't help >> in this case. > Alias analysis is just the closest example of what I really need to do: >

On Aug 10, 2007, at 10:15 AM, David Greene wrote: > However, what happens when alias analysis information gets > invalidated? > Is Andersen's still "available" in the sense analysis groups use it? > > If not, it seems it would be tough to make sure Andersen's is always > used everywhere that AliasAnalysis is asked for because there are > passes > llvm

On Thursday 09 August 2007 19:21, Chris Lattner wrote: > Interesting question, I don't have an answer to this. To make things more > complicated, you can have multiple instances of an analysis group and may > want different things at different times: > > -basicaa -licm -something_that_invalidates_aa -andersaa -licm -whatever Some questions about that: How does this

On Friday 10 August 2007 17:55, David Greene wrote: > On Friday 10 August 2007 15:12, David Greene wrote: > > Perhaps an easier way is to just expose the -simple-register-coalescing > > and -conservative-register-coalescing options to the user, but I don't > > know how to do that on an individual pass bases. opt just jams then all > > in with PassNameParser.

Hi, Reid Spencer wrote: >> That's interesting! So, one only needs to add a 2-arg function called >> RunOptimizations to the module (can't check it right now)? >> > > That is correct. That function and only that function will be called. > What happens in that function is up to you :) > So, I tried this the last two days, but to no avail. I first

I have a problem where I add an Andersens AA pass to the pass manager, but it appears to get invalidated by another pass, and never rerun. My understanding from reading the documentation is that when a pass gets invalidated, it should be rerun before any other passes that requires it. Here is a simple example of the problem I am seeing: PassManager passManager; passManager.add(new

Hello, Does the LLVM Andersens alias analysis handle function pointers precisely? I ran it and it looks like it says every function points points to the universal set. Is this what I should expect? Max -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20090826/ff8d6c78/attachment.html>

On Aug 26, 2009, at 6:40 PM, Max Stonebraker wrote: > Hello, > > Does the LLVM Andersens alias analysis handle function pointers > precisely? I ran it and it looks like it says every function points > points to the universal set. Is this what I should expect? Hi Max, I don't know the answer offhand but please keep in mind that the current andersen's pass has many

Might I suggest the following patch, because this issue has bite me too? You're lured in by the initial good results from the Andersens alias analysis, only to discover the bugs later on. Robert Zeh On Aug 26, 2009, at 9:11 PM, Chris Lattner wrote: > On Aug 26, 2009, at 6:40 PM, Max Stonebraker wrote: >> Hello, >> >> Does the LLVM Andersens alias analysis handle

On Aug 9, 2007, at 2:22 PM, David Greene wrote: > A better question to ask is, how do I do this with llvm-gcc? My > perusal of > the code doesn't turn up any obvious places for options for alias > analysis > are registered. As you've figured out, not all options are exposed by llvm-gcc. You'll have to update llvm-gcc. - Devang

Hi all, Did someone forget to check-in a patch? I'm getting this error during compilation on PPC: /Volumes/SandBox/Clean/llvm-9999-01.roots/llvm-9999-01~obj/src/llvm/lib/Analysis/IPA/Andersens.cpp: In function 'void dumpToDOUT(llvm::SparseBitVector<128u>*)': /Volumes/SandBox/Clean/llvm-9999-01.roots/llvm-9999-01~obj/src/llvm/lib/Analysis/IPA/Andersens.cpp:1189: error: no

On Sep 24, 2007, at 2:29 PM, Bill Wendling wrote: > Hi all, > > Did someone forget to check-in a patch? I'm getting this error during > compilation on PPC: A recent checkout compiled fine for me (on x86). > /Volumes/SandBox/Clean/llvm-9999-01.roots/llvm-9999-01~obj/src/llvm/ > lib/Analysis/IPA/Andersens.cpp: > In function 'void

A debug or release build? -bw On Sep 24, 2007, at 2:36 PM, Dale Johannesen wrote: > > On Sep 24, 2007, at 2:29 PM, Bill Wendling wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> Did someone forget to check-in a patch? I'm getting this error during >> compilation on PPC: > > A recent checkout compiled fine for me (on x86). > >>