similar to: [LLVMdev] DominatorTree Information required in CallGraphPass

On Feb 11, 2009, at 6:05 PM, kapil anand wrote: > Hi all, > > I am implementing a new pass for LLVM which extends Call Graph > SCCPass. I need DominatorTree Information when I get to individual > function. I have added AU.addrequired<DominatorTree>() and > AU.addRequired<DominanceFrontier>() in getAnalysisUsage() function. > > But, when I get to the pass,

Hi, I am writing a CallGraphSCCPass that uses LoopInfo which is a FunctionPass. However, doing so results in the following error. **** Unable to schedule 'Natural Loop Information' required by '......' **** Google led me to this page, where Devang Patel suggests implementing the addLowerLevelRequiredPasses in CGPassManager in a manner similar to MPPassManager.

Hi Devang, GlobalModRefPass is also a ModulePass and it uses CallGraph Analysis. So, I think it should not necessary to extend CallGraphSCCPass to use CallGraph information. Module Pass shoule be sufficient... --Kapil On 10/8/08, Devang Patel <dpatel at apple.com> wrote: > Hi Kapil, > > On Oct 8, 2008, at 10:19 AM, kapil anand wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> I

Hello, I'm trying to improve SimpleInliner to use information given by __builtin_expect instruction (It would be better to not to inline if a call instruction is unlikely to be executed). The problem here is that it is not possible to compute control dependency relationship between the annotated branch instruction and callsites using PostDominatorTree, because PostDominatorTree is a function

On Oct 8, 2008, at 10:59 AM, kapil anand wrote: > Hi Devang, > > GlobalModRefPass is also a ModulePass and it uses CallGraph Analysis. > So, I think it should not necessary to extend CallGraphSCCPass to use > CallGraph information. Module Pass shoule be sufficient... ok, but you're Registering your pass in CallGraph Analysis group. What if you remove

Hi all, I need a new kind of analysis on LLVM Module, so I made a new pass to do this. This new pass extends the ModulePass class and follows the conventions used in GlobalModRefPass, which is also a Module Pass.I need the CallGraph analysis for this pass, hence I have added (addRequired(CallGraph)) in getAnalysisUsage function of this new pass. I also added it to CallGraph Analysis group through

Hi Kapil, On Oct 8, 2008, at 10:19 AM, kapil anand wrote: > Hi all, > > I need a new kind of analysis on LLVM Module, so I made a new pass > to do this. This new pass extends the ModulePass class and follows > the conventions used in GlobalModRefPass, which is also a Module > Pass.I need the CallGraph analysis for this pass, hence I have added >

Hi Fellows, I am writing a pass that requires the DominatorTree pass. In the runOnFunction of my own pass, I call llvm::SplitBlock to split a block (%for.end) at it's first insert point. Then, when I dump my dominator tree immediately after, I can see the newly split %for.end.split, but its DFSNumIn and DFSNumOut are not properly updated in llvm::SplitBlock (i.e., still the initialized

Hi Andrew, Thanks a lot. But the function "DT->dominate(A,B)" decides the dominance relationship through comparing the DFS numbers, right? At least, in my example, when I check whether the newly split node (i.e., % *for.end.split*) DOMINATES the original node (I.e., %for.end), the answer is true, which is obviously wrong. Paul On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 1:59 AM, Andrew Trick

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 all, I am trying to traverse a dominator tree and have encountered a weird runtime exception: Here's my simple code: virtual bool runOnFunction(Function &F) { DominatorTree& DT = getAnalysis<DominatorTree>(); * DomTreeNode* rootNode = DT.getRootNode();* return false. } Here's the documentation page:

You said it was expensive, but if you had to put a big-o estimate on it, what would it be? -Thanks Jeff Kunkel On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 8:54 PM, Andrei Alvares <logytech at gmail.com> wrote: > Hello Jeff, > > On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 9:17 PM, Jeff Kunkel <jdkunk3 at gmail.com> wrote: > > My god! I would love a branch predictor! It would simplify many aspects > of >

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

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

Hello, I have a transform that, given a function F, will produce a new function G such that the basic blocks of G are (copies of) a subset of the basic blocks of F, and such that control flow is connected as you would expect. Given DominatorTree and DominanceFrontier of F, I would also like to efficiently compute DominatorTrees and DominanceFrontiers of G. I understand how to do this

On 4/11/13 10:30 PM, Bill He wrote: > Hi all, > > I am trying to traverse a dominator tree and have encountered a weird > runtime exception: > > Here's my simple code: > > virtual bool runOnFunction(Function &F) { > DominatorTree& DT = getAnalysis<DominatorTree>(); > > * DomTreeNode* rootNode = DT.getRootNode();* > return false.

Hi Michael, > 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. I suggest you build LLVM with assertions enabled - then you should get a helpful error message rather than a segfault. I think you are not allowed to

Thanks for your reply, John. I am using opt to run my pass. Should opt by default link in the library? Would you please give me some idea on fixing it? Thanks! opt -load ../../../Debug+Asserts/lib/LLVMHello.dylib -hello < hello.bc > /dev/null My pass is just: #include "llvm/IR/Function.h" #include "llvm/Pass.h" #include "llvm/Support/raw_ostream.h" #include

Hi Jeff, There is an algorithm to build the dominator tree that is O(n2), where n is the number of nodes on the control flow graph. I believe exists another that is linear, but I don't which one of them is implemented in LLVM. The problem is that the branch predictor requires post dominance information. None of the LLVM basic passes require post dominance information (AFAIK), hence it is

On 4/12/13 9:51 AM, Bill He wrote: > Thanks for your reply, John. > > I am using opt to run my pass. Should opt by default link in the > library? Would you please give me some idea on fixing it? Thanks! Odd. I would think that opt would have that pass linked in statically. I'm not sure why it's not working. Does anyone else have an idea? -- John T. > > opt -load