similar to: [LLVMdev] Passes document

Hello, I wrote my own pass which needs to do some loop unrolling. I can perform loop unrolling via opt: opt -mem2reg -loops -loop-simplify -loop-rotate -lcssa -loop-unroll -unroll-count=50 mytest.bc -o mytest.bc This command works perfectly. However, what I really want is to produce the **same behavior** but from my own pass (i.e., I don't want to use opt). I wrote a Module pass which

On Aug 6, 2012, at 6:04 AM, Jorge Navas <navas at comp.nus.edu.sg> wrote: > > Hello, > > I wrote my own pass which needs to do some loop unrolling. > > I can perform loop unrolling via opt: > > opt -mem2reg -loops -loop-simplify -loop-rotate -lcssa -loop-unroll > -unroll-count=50 mytest.bc -o mytest.bc > > This command works perfectly. > >

Interestingly, I also get a similar error in a different executable (my unittest): pure virtual method called terminate called without an active exception 0 tartc 0x00000001010a8265 PrintStackTrace(void*) + 53 1 tartc 0x00000001010a88cc SignalHandler(int) + 364 2 libSystem.B.dylib 0x00007fff831341ba _sigtramp + 26 3 libSystem.B.dylib 0x7261742e65637365 _sigtramp +

On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 9:49 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com>wrote: > On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 9:20 PM, Talin <viridia at gmail.com> wrote: > >> I recently updated my version of LLVM from revision 140108 to 142082, and >> several things broke, most of which were easily fixed. However, I'm now >> getting a "pure virtual method called"

Sorry, I meant DIBuilder. On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 1:32 PM, Talin <viridia at gmail.com> wrote: > I didn't know DIFactory existed until you mentioned it just now. > > And if folks are adding brand new classes to LLVM, can we not follow the > naming conventions in the developer guidelines? > > On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 5:14 AM, Renato Golin <rengolin at

On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 12:59 PM, nicolas geoffray < nicolas.geoffray at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Talin, > > You are not doing something wrong, it is just that the LLVM optimizers > consider llvm.gcroot like a regular function call. The alloca is moved in > the first block most probably because the inliner anticipates another > optimization pass (the mem2reg). > OK, well,

Sure. I think we can change the GC lowering pass to recognize all llvm.gcroot (not only the ones in the first block), and move them to the first block so that they are initialized by the pass later on. On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 10:58 PM, Talin <viridia at gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 12:59 PM, nicolas geoffray < > nicolas.geoffray at gmail.com> wrote: > >>

Hi Hongbin I am not quite familiar with AnalysisUsage, let me correct question a bit. I have read Writing Pass <http://llvm.org/docs/WritingAnLLVMPass.html#specifying-interactions-between-passes>, All examples that i see here are based on collecting information .i.e Analysis Passes. I wonder if this applies to Transformation passes also. e.g. void MyInliner::getAnalysisUsage(AnalysisUsage

Hi all, I am trying to run a case as follows: FunctionPass1: try to get all function's names and store them to a global array FunctionPass2: get information from the global array In FunctionPass2, I use getAnalysisUsage() to set that to run FunctionPass2, FunctionPass1 should be executed first. But according to the running result, I found that these two passes are executing at the same

On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 10:51 AM, nicolas geoffray < nicolas.geoffray at gmail.com> wrote: > I didn't have unions in mind - indeed you need some kind of static > information in such a case. The GC infrastructure in LLVM having so little > love, I think it is good if you can improve it in any ways, as well as > defining new interfaces. So the patch is OK then? All it does

I didn't have unions in mind - indeed you need some kind of static information in such a case. The GC infrastructure in LLVM having so little love, I think it is good if you can improve it in any ways, as well as defining new interfaces. Cheers, Nicolas On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 6:38 PM, Talin <viridia at gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 1:04 AM, nicolas geoffray < >

Jeffrey and I are working on future standard library functionality for hashing user defined types: http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2012/n3333.html I would much rather have an interface that is close to or mirrors this one. We already have some field experience with it, and using it in LLVM and Clang would provide more. Also, it would be possible to essentially share code

Here's my latest version of Hashing.h, which I propose to add to llvm/ADT. Comments welcome and encouraged. On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 11:23 AM, Talin <viridia at gmail.com> wrote: > By the way, the reason I'm bringing this up is that a number of folks are > currently working on optimizing the use of hash tables within LLVM's code > base, and unless we can come up with a

Having a ModulePass that requires a FunctionPass that in turn requires another ModulePass results in an assertion being fired. Is this expected behavior (that seems to be undocumented), or a bug? Specifically, the following code will emit the assertion: [VMCore/PassManager.cpp:1597: virtual void llvm::ModulePass::assignPassManager(llvm::PMStack&, llvm::PassManagerType): Assertion

So I wasn't able to attend the developer meeting this year, even though I had signed up for it. This was a big disappointment to me, particularly because I had hoped to get some hands-on assistance for some unsolved problems that I have been struggling with for the last six months or so. Unfortunately, some of these problems aren't easily reducible to a simple test case which I can

On Sat, Aug 28, 2010 at 4:05 PM, Talin <viridia at gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 5:58 PM, Devang Patel <devang.patel at gmail.com>wrote: > >> >> On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 12:50 PM, Talin <viridia at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> I recently started getting this error when I try to debug my >>> LLVM-compiled program in GDB:

Hi Talin, This looks interesting..! Can you email me your tool? Cheers, Raghu. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Renato Golin" <rengolin at systemcall.org> To: "Talin" <viridia at gmail.com> Cc: "LLVM Developers Mailing List" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> Sent: Saturday, February 12, 2011 1:31:10 AM Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Introducing LLBrowse: A

Hello I am working on pass which has dependency on multiple passes. Say D1,D2,D3 I used INITIALIZE_PASS_BEGIN INITIALIZE_PASS_DEPENDENCY(D1) INITIALIZE_PASS_DEPENDENCY(D2) INITIALIZE_PASS_DEPENDENCY(D3) INITIALIZE_PASS_END. While running it through opt tool it, I had to specify this D1,D2,D3 pass names to get this pass executed before my pass. Is there way, to let llvm pass manager to know

Hi. I'm trying to implement a module pass which can be dynamically loaded by `opt` (against up-to-date llvm from svn). Despite what the tutorial (http://llvm.org/docs/WritingAnLLVMPass.html) states in my module pass I cannot perform getAnalysis and fetch the function pass result. When trying to do so `opt` fails with the following mesage: [***@*** ***]$ opt -load

On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 5:58 PM, Devang Patel <devang.patel at gmail.com>wrote: > > On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 12:50 PM, Talin <viridia at gmail.com> wrote: > >> I recently started getting this error when I try to debug my LLVM-compiled >> program in GDB: >> >> Dwarf Error: Cannot find DIE at 0x16769 referenced from DIE at 0x1713c >> [in module