similar to: [LLVMdev] pass for backend

Hi, I found the -postdomfrontier pass in *llvm*.org/docs/Passes.html, but 'opt' does not accept it. I could not find the relevant codes in PostDominance.cpp in SVN trunk, but I found some relevant codes here http://opensource.apple.com/source/clang/clang-137/src/lib/Analysis/PostDominators.cpp. I am wondering why this pass is removed and what should I do if I want the post

On 07/13/2012 04:30 PM, Duncan Sands wrote: > Hi, > >> I found the -postdomfrontier pass in *llvm*.org/docs/Passes.html, but >> 'opt' does not accept it. I could not find the relevant codes in >> PostDominance.cpp in SVN trunk, but I found some relevant codes here >> http://opensource.apple.com/source/clang/clang-137/src/lib/Analysis/PostDominators.cpp.

George Baah <georgebaah at gmail.com> writes: > Hi Guys, > > I saw in the API that DominanceFrontier has been deprecated. Is this > for real? > I have read the computational issues but shouldn't that be left to the > users of llvm? > My concern is I am writing a Control Dependence module that uses > Dominance-Frontier information. > Getting rid of Dominance

Hi shadowkernel, > I searched the archives and found > http://llvm.1065342.n5.nabble.com/post-dominance-frontier-fix-td10221.html > http://llvm.1065342.n5.nabble.com/Is-there-a-control-dependence-graph-builder-td35919.html#a35921 > http://llvm.1065342.n5.nabble.com/post-dominance-frontier-td6783.html > > It seems none of them are relevant. Could you give me more hints about

Hi, > I found the -postdomfrontier pass in *llvm*.org/docs/Passes.html, but > 'opt' does not accept it. I could not find the relevant codes in > PostDominance.cpp in SVN trunk, but I found some relevant codes here > http://opensource.apple.com/source/clang/clang-137/src/lib/Analysis/PostDominators.cpp. > > > I am wondering why this pass is removed and what should I

Hi Guys, I saw in the API that DominanceFrontier has been deprecated. Is this for real? I have read the computational issues but shouldn't that be left to the users of llvm? My concern is I am writing a Control Dependence module that uses Dominance-Frontier information. Getting rid of Dominance Frontiers will put me in a tight spot. George -------------- next part -------------- An HTML

Hi, In browsing through the LLVM source, I don't currently see an implementation for a control dependence graph builder. Am I overlooking something? It doesn't look like LLVM currently provides a way to build the post-dominance frontier of the reverse CFG, either. Dominators.h mentions forward dominators, but I believe all this is referring to is dominators as opposed to post-dominators,

Hi, I found that LLVM 3.1 says Dominance frontier is deprecated. Can anyone please tell me, if there is any replacement for Dominance frontier & Postdominance frontier in LLVM? What are the options if we need to use them? Thanks, Swarup. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

Hello, I have an analysis pass and a target machine class, both in different dynamically loadable libraries (plugins). There is no problem to use the analysis pass (opt -load=libanalysis.dylib -barpass foo.bc), but is it possible to get data from the analysis pass (by getAnalysis) while using the backend? AFAIK it is only allowed to have one plugin argument for llc (like: llc

Hi, if I want to use 'llvm-gcc' I get: dyld: Library not loaded: /opt/local/lib/libiconv.2.dylib Referenced from: /Users/me/llvm/gcc/bin/llvm-gcc Reason: Incompatible library version: llvm-gcc requires version 8.0.0 or later, but libiconv.2.dylib provides version 7.0.0 Trace/BPT trap So I installed MacPorts and 'libiconv', but I get the same error message. But it _should_

On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 2:38 PM, Mark Lacey<superoptimizer at gmail.com> wrote: > In browsing through the LLVM source, I don't currently see an implementation > for a control dependence graph builder. Am I overlooking something? No, I don't think there is one. I think an implementation would be welcome if you're willing to contribute one. > It doesn't look like

On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 3:05 PM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote: > > Try PostDominators.h. > Yes, I seemed to have blanked out there for minute and thought I needed something other than the post-dominance frontier. Mark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

Hi folks, For the past month I’ve been working on improving the DominatorTree and PostDominatorTree in LLVM. The RFC that explains the motivations and plans can be found here: http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2017-June/114045.html . Here’s a short summary of what changed upstream since posting it: - We switched from the Simple Lengauer-Tarjan algorithm for computing dominators

On Dec 5, 2009, at 1:27 PM, Nico wrote: > Hi, > > if I want to use 'llvm-gcc' I get: > > dyld: Library not loaded: /opt/local/lib/libiconv.2.dylib > Referenced from: /Users/me/llvm/gcc/bin/llvm-gcc > Reason: Incompatible library version: llvm-gcc requires version 8.0.0 or later, but libiconv.2.dylib provides version 7.0.0 > Trace/BPT trap > > So I

Hi, I want to invoke the AddReadAttrs pass with my software backend (derived from TargetMachine like CBackend). CBackend uses addPassesToEmitWholeFile-method for invoking several passes. I tried to use the same method, but it failed on runtime. Running llc with my backend produces (mac os x 10.5 and llvm 2.4): dyld: lazy symbol binding failed: Symbol not found:

Try breaking the critical edges (-break-crit-edges). This way, a new block will be created between BB13 and BB11 (call this BB11.break) and BB15 and BB12 (call this BB12.break). The predecessors of the dominance frontier will, thus, be BB11.break, BB12.break, and BB14. When we enter through a block with a call to malloc(), we will end up in one of the blocks in the dominance frontier (kind of).

Hi Henrique, I have tried using -mergereturn and inserting a free into the predecessors of dominance frontier of malloc block and it caused double free. It is possible for multiple free's to be inserted on the path from malloc to an exit. For example, in the following CFG: BB10 (malloc) / \ BB11 BB12 ... / \ / \

On Thu, 9 Nov 2006, Ryan M. Lefever wrote: Sorry I never responded to this: > In the literature (see below for a reference), when a dominance frontier > is computed, it is computed from a CFG that contains a dummy entry node > and dummy exit node. Further, those dummy nodes are potential members > of the (post-)dominance frontier for a given basic block. In LLVM, I > could not

In the literature (see below for a reference), when a dominance frontier is computed, it is computed from a CFG that contains a dummy entry node and dummy exit node. Further, those dummy nodes are potential members of the (post-)dominance frontier for a given basic block. In LLVM, I could not figure out a way to determine if the dummy entry node is a member of the post-dominance frontier of

Is there a reason this is better than the modified algorithm created by Ferrante? It looks like yours has as bad a worst case time bound in reality. That is, the algorithm runs in O(sum of the size of all the dominance frontiers). http://www.cs.rice.edu/~keith/Embed/dom.pdf See figure 5. It will only touch nodes actually in the dominance frontier. This is what GCC uses. There are actually real