similar to: [LLVMdev] Patch: PassManager should call add() instead of addLowerLevelRequiredPass()

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, 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 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:

Hi, I am trying to use the poolallocator. More specific, I am trying to play around with the pointer compression pass. Though, I get assertion failures for the pass dependencies. This is when it in PointerCompress::getAnalysisUsage tries to register the the BU pass as required. I.e. when AU.addRequired<CompleteBUDataStructures>(); is called. $ opt -f -load

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

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

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, I am trying to write an LLVM project, using LLVM 2.9. My passes are defined as follows, where the Pass2 requires Pass1. namespace llvm { class BaseClass : public ModulePass { // Name for printing const char* printname; protected: BaseClass(char id, const char* name) : ModulePass(id),printname(name){ } }; class Pass1 : public BaseClass { public: static char ID; Pass1() :

I've never been able to figure this one out: llvm/lib/VMCore/PassManager.cpp:938: virtual void llvm::PMDataManager::addLowerLevelRequiredPass(llvm::Pass*, llvm::Pass*): Assertion `0 && "Unable to handle Pass that requires lower level Analysis pass"' failed. In the past, I've resolved this by disabling random addRequired calls in the offending Pass, even when

On Jul 25, 2007, at 3:15 PM, David A. Greene wrote: > 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. In simple words, pass manager

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

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, the CallGraph pass is only available in opt. Is there any substantial reason for that? Or is it only because it seems not to be useful for llc? I want to use it in an backend that is derived from the CBackend. I need the information what functions are called in every other function to build communication struktures between the functions. The backend is generating VHDL from C code.

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

Hello all, I've noticed that whenever a ``higher'' pass requires a ``lower'' pass, an assert *always* fails in the pass manager. I believe the correct behavior is to not schedule the lower pass, but instead run it when the higher pass calls getAnalysis<>(). Consider, for instance, this test case: #include "llvm/Pass.h" #include

Dear all, I would like to use the PostDominatorTree in ArgPromotion. I did not find an example of how to use function level analysis inside CallGraphSCCPass. I tried to follow an example of how to use function-level pass in a module pass, but I hit "llvm_unreachable" in PMDataManager::addLowerLevelRequiredPass. What would be a proper way to make PostDominatorTree available in

Thanks for the response. I do have assertions enabled, and none of them are getting hit. I did do a search of the mailing list for the past year (approximately) before writing my email, and what I found was that you should be allowed to use LoopInfo and other analysis function passes from a module pass, with the only difference being that getAnalysis is passed the function. The example code I

Hi all: I apologize if this is a stupid question, but I haven't found a direct statement of what kinds of requirements the Pass Manager imposes on pass dependency graphs. I found a number of bug reports related to unschedulable passes (e.g. "Unable to schedule pass" asserts from the pass manager), but it isn't always clear if these are true bugs in the scheduling algorithm

hi again :) On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 8:57 AM, ether zhhb <etherzhhb at gmail.com> wrote: > hi john, > > thanks very much, i will try it out. > > --best regards > ether > > > On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 10:03 PM, John Criswell <criswell at uiuc.edu> wrote: > >> ether zhhb wrote: >> >>> hi all, >>> >>> i have some thing