similar to: [LLVMdev] poolallocation error

Hi all, I too am getting this error for x86_64 when I am trying to use the Data Structure Analysis ...I svn upped both the llvm main branch and the poolalloc today in the morning and recompiled everything from scratch : $ opt -load /home/pprabhu/llvm/llvm-install-x86-64/lib/libpoolalloc.so -ds-aa < o.bc opt: /home/pprabhu/llvm/llvm/lib/VMCore/PassManager.cpp:1418: virtual void

Dear Prakash, I believe I've fixed the problem you were having with ds-aa. Please update your poolalloc tree, recompile, and let me know if it works. -- John T. Criswell, John T wrote: > [snip] > > ________________________________________ > From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] On Behalf Of Prakash Prabhu [prakash.prabhu at gmail.com] > Sent:

Dear Prakash, Yes, DSA is still in active use, although nobody else uses the -ds-aa pass as far as I know. I tried the below sample (although ds-aa should be in libLLVMDataStructure.so and not libpoolalloc.so), and I get the same error. I've seen similar problems with other passes in our work here. My guess is that -ds-aa is requiring two passes that claim to invalidate each other; this

Dear all, I am trying to use the DSA-based alias analysis. I want to do something like this: opt -ds-aa -print-alias-sets -disable-output hello.bc I downloaded and installed llvm-gcc 2.3 and added to PATH, then svn co http://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk llvm cd llvm/projects svn co http://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/poolalloc/trunk/ poolalloc and built without enabling optimizations, on

Hello, LLVM asserts in the following scenario. Say there are three passes: A, B, C. C requires A and B; B requires A; and B does not preserve A. A valid pass ordering would be A B A C. However, opt gives the following assertion: $ opt -load libPassTest.so foo.bc -f -o /dev/null -c -debug-pass=Structure opt: /u/loc/kevin/llvm/llvm/lib/VMCore/PassManager.cpp:1424: virtual void

Thanks for the answer I am trying to test the PA with a program very similar to the one used as an example in the paper located here: http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu/pubs/2003-04-29-DataStructureAnalysisTR.html The program is as follows: ========================== struct list { struct list *Next; }; struct list *makeList (int Num) { struct list *New = malloc ( sizeof ( struct list ) );

Hello, I am trying to run a program optimized with the Pool Allocation, but I am receiving this error: ==================== libpoolalloc.so: undefined symbol: _ZTIN4llvm16EquivClassGraphsE -load request ignored. *** 4 DYNAMIC POOLS INITIALIZED *** *** 4 DYNAMIC POOLS ALLOCATED FROM *** MaxHeapSize = 0.062500KB HeapSizeAtExit = 0.062500KB NOTE: only valid if using Heuristic=AllPools and no

On Sat, 2 Apr 2005, Ricardo wrote: > After applying the PA to it, the output is something like this: ... > My question is: why is this malloc necessary? > ltmp_2_5 = malloc(4u); > Shouldn't be the result a program with this malloc replaced by poolalloc? > Should I include a special flag to achieve this? Ah, sorry, my memory was wrong. The default is to perform the

Thanks Chris! That was causing me some confusion. Now it's producing a more meaningful output: poolinit((&l2_GlobalPool), 4u, 4u); poolinit((&l2_GlobalPool1), 4u, 4u); l5_tmp_2E_0_2E_i = poolalloc((&l2_GlobalPool), 4u); l6_tmp_2E_7_2E_i2 = l1_makeList((&l2_GlobalPool1), 0); *(&((struct l_struct_2E_list *)l5_tmp_2E_0_2E_i)->field0) = l6_tmp_2E_7_2E_i2;

On Sat, 2 Apr 2005, Ricardo wrote: > Hello, > I am trying to run a program optimized with the Pool Allocation, but I am receiving this error: > > ==================== > > *** 4 DYNAMIC POOLS INITIALIZED *** > > *** 4 DYNAMIC POOLS ALLOCATED FROM *** > > MaxHeapSize = 0.062500KB HeapSizeAtExit = 0.062500KB NOTE: only valid if using > Heuristic=AllPools and no

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. -Dave

Hi,It seems inliner does not take into account if a call is inside a loop. I'm trying to figure out if loop-info can be made available to the inliner. When I try to add LoopInfoWrapperPass to Inliner.cpp, diff --git a/llvm/lib/Transforms/IPO/Inliner.cpp b/llvm/lib/Transforms/IPO/Inliner.cppindex 568707d..cb51ea8 100644--- a/llvm/lib/Transforms/IPO/Inliner.cpp+++

Hi LLVM dev team: I am now doing an experiment to comparing Steensgaard-style and Andersen-style pointer analysis on LLVM. Since steensgaard pointer analysis is in module "poolalloc", so I installed poolalloc release 2.6 on my machine(intel X86_64 RedHatEnterpriseLinux 5.1, gcc-4.2.4), two directories "include" and "lib" were created after installation but no

When migrating my project to 2.9, I've encountered a strange segfault where if a ModulePass's getAnalysisUsage adds LoopInfo and DominatorTree, then llvm::PMTopLevelManager::findAnalysisUsage will segfault. What's odd is that if I rearrange this (add required for DominatorTree before LoopInfo), it does not segfault. I realize that LoopInfo requires and preserves DominatorTree, but this

Hi, LLVM dev team: Thanks for your suggestion, I have done the experiment to compare the two pointer analysis(Andersen and Steensgaard) methods in LLVM, but the result was unexpected. In each test, I compare these two methods using same optimization; There are several tests, each with a different optimization. The benchmark is all the 11 C programs in CINT2000 of SPEC. In all the tests, I found

聪明陈 wrote: > Hi LLVM dev team: > I am now doing an experiment to comparing Steensgaard-style and > Andersen-style pointer analysis on LLVM. Since steensgaard pointer > analysis is in module "poolalloc", so I installed poolalloc release > 2.6 on my machine(intel X86_64 RedHatEnterpriseLinux 5.1, gcc-4.2.4), > two directories "include" and "lib" were

FYI - There is currently an architectural issue which prevents the SCC pass manager (which runs the inliner) from relying on Function or Loop analysis passes. This is the primary motivation of the pass manager rewrite that Chandler Carruth has been working on for the last two years. He's getting relatively close to that project being done, but until then you are going to be effectively

Hi, LLVM dev team: Thanks for your suggestion, I have done the experiment to compare the two pointer analysis(Andersen and Steensgaard) methods in LLVM, but the result was unexpected. In each test, I compare these two methods using same optimization; There are several tests, each with a different optimization. The benchmark is all the 11 C programs in CINT2000 of SPEC. In all the tests, I found

Dear All, I'm triggering the following assertion in MPPassManager::addLowerLevelRequiredPass(): assert ((P->getPotentialPassManagerType() < RequiredPass->getPotentialPassManagerType()) && "Unable to handle Pass that requires lower level Analysis pass"); As it turns out, both P and RequiredPass are both ModulePasses. Should the assertion be

Hi, On Linux I observed [root at localhost poolalloc]# find . -name *.a ./Release+Asserts/lib/LLVMDataStructure.a ./Release+Asserts/lib/poolalloc.a ./Release+Asserts/lib/AssistDS.a ./Release+Asserts/lib/libpoolalloc_fl_rt.a ./Release+Asserts/lib/libpoolalloc_rt.a ./Release+Asserts/lib/libpa_pre_rt.a ./Release+Asserts/lib/libcount.a On cygwin I observed kpawar at KPAWAR-LT