similar to: [LLVMdev] Pass Manager hangs with CallGraph and LoopSimplify

See http://llvm.org/docs/GettingStarted.html#brokengcc and then try building with something OTHER than GCC 4.1.2 . ----- Original Message ---- > From: Nick Johnson <npjohnso at cs.princeton.edu> > To: LLVM Developers Mailing List <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> > Sent: Monday, May 11, 2009 3:01:12 PM > Subject: [LLVMdev] Pass Manager hangs with CallGraph and LoopSimplify >

Hi, I'm writing a function pass which is dynamically loaded by opt and I need some analysis and passes to be run before my pass: virtual void getAnalysisUsage(AnalysisUsage &AU) const { AU.addRequired<LoopInfo>(); AU.addPreserved<LoopInfo>(); AU.addRequiredID(LoopSimplifyID); AU.addPreservedID(LoopSimplifyID);

Just noticed that quite a few passes like LoopSimplify are implemented in a single .cpp file ... this makes it impossible to specify LoopSimplify using the "addRequired" method. Was there any particular reason to do it this way? I wouldn't mind doing the splitting myself, though I am not using the CVS versions right now. Also, it would be nice to have support for some sort of a

Hi again, I come back to this issue with an example. It's a pass which does nothing but throw the 'Unable to schedule' error. namespace { struct MyPass : public FunctionPass { static char ID; // Pass identification, replacement for typeid MyPass() : FunctionPass(ID) { initializeMyPassPass(*PassRegistry::getPassRegistry()); } virtual void

On Fri, Apr 29, 2005 at 08:10:17AM -0500, Chris Lattner wrote: > AU.addRequiredID(LoopSimplifyID); > > "LoopSimplifyID" is a marker that is used to identify the pass, which is > exported from the .cpp file. I'll have to declare a PassInfo* called LoopSimplifyID inside namespace llvm, in order for that to compile correctly, right? I was wondering why not simply

On Fri, 29 Apr 2005, Sameer D. Sahasrabuddhe wrote: > Just noticed that quite a few passes like LoopSimplify are implemented > in a single .cpp file ... this makes it impossible to specify > LoopSimplify using the "addRequired" method. Was there any particular > reason to do it this way? I wouldn't mind doing the splitting myself, > though I am not using the CVS

I am trying to add an analysis pass as a FunctionPass, and let LICM (LoopPass) depends upon it. So in LICM.cpp, I have the following: virtual void getAnalysisUsage(AnalysisUsage &AU) const { AU.setPreservesCFG(); AU.addRequired<DominatorTree>(); AU.addRequired<LoopInfo>(); AU.addRequiredID(LoopSimplifyID); AU.addRequired<AliasAnalysis>();

On 4/12/12 3:32 AM, Ivan Llopard wrote: > Hi again, > > I come back to this issue with an example. It's a pass which does > nothing but throw the 'Unable to schedule' error. > > namespace { > struct MyPass : public FunctionPass { > static char ID; // Pass identification, replacement for typeid > MyPass() : FunctionPass(ID) { >

On 6/5/12 10:39 AM, Ralf Karrenberg wrote: > Hi John, > > On 6/5/12 4:31 PM, John Criswell wrote: >> On 4/12/12 3:32 AM, Ivan Llopard wrote: >>> Hi again, >>> >>> I come back to this issue with an example. It's a pass which does >>> nothing but throw the 'Unable to schedule' error. >>> >>> namespace { >>>

I'm attempting to add some support for hoisting/sinking of memory-using intrinsics in loops, and so I want to use MemoryDependenceAnalysis in LICM, but when I modify getAnalysisUsge to include this : virtual void getAnalysisUsage(AnalysisUsage &AU) const { AU.setPreservesCFG(); AU.addRequired<DominatorTree>(); AU.addRequired<LoopInfo>();

Hi John, On 6/5/12 4:31 PM, John Criswell wrote: > On 4/12/12 3:32 AM, Ivan Llopard wrote: >> Hi again, >> >> I come back to this issue with an example. It's a pass which does >> nothing but throw the 'Unable to schedule' error. >> >> namespace { >> struct MyPass : public FunctionPass { >> static char ID; // Pass

If I run: opt -globals-aa -die -inline -debug-pass=Details foo.ll -S then I will get this pass structure: Target Library Information Target Transform Information Target Pass Configuration Assumption Cache Tracker Profile summary info ModulePass Manager CallGraph Construction Globals Alias Analysis FunctionPass Manager BasicBlockPass Manager Dead Instruction

Hello . I would like to add new custom data type to llvm C parser, I use LLVM/Clang version 3.1. Adding new type instructions from llvm.org site are out of date (http://llvm.org/docs/ExtendingLLVM.html#type). Could you please provide me with guidance? Thanks in advance, Edvard  -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

I'm not sure about the old pass manager, but I think the new pass manager solves this issue. See llvm::updateCGAndAnalysisManagerForFunctionPass where it updates the call graph to be in sync with edges deleted by function passes. So I suspect the right fix is to use the new pass manager. -- Sanjoy On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 7:32 AM, Björn Pettersson A via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at

Hello . I'm trying to implement LoopPass. Here is simple code :    class LoopParser: public llvm::LoopPass   {     public:       static char ID;     public:       virtual void getAnalysisUsage(llvm::AnalysisUsage &AU) const       {         AU.addRequiredID(llvm::LoopSimplifyID);         AU.addPreservedID(llvm::LoopSimplifyID);         AU.addRequired<llvm::LoopInfo>();       }    

Hi Edvard, _ZTIN4llvm8LoopPassE is "typeinfo for llvm::LoopPass". LLVM is built without typeinfo, so you will need to build your pass with -fno-rtti. Ciao, Duncan. > I'm trying to implement LoopPass. > Here is simple code : > > class LoopParser: public llvm::LoopPass > { > public: > static char ID; > > public: > virtual

Well, do you have a patch that enables the new pass manager that we can land then? To be more serious: 1) I don't even know how to run those passes using the new pass manager even if it where enabled by default. I guess that I'm supposed to use -passes. Is there a syntax description for that option somewhere? How do I for example run -die? 2) "Use the new pass manager" does

On 08/12/2010 09:41 PM, Douglas do Couto Teixeira wrote: > Dear guys, > > I am having problems to obtain good information from the LoopInfo. > I am always getting a trip count of 0, even though I am clearly passing > a loop with a constant bound. I am using this pass below: Hi, I would propose to first check if the trip count is calculated correctly. I would do this with opt

Hello: We are working with LLVM-3.1 and we have a problem.This is the code we have executed: virtual void getAnalysisUsage( llvm::AnalysisUsage & info ) const { info.addRequired<CallGraph>(); ... } ... virtual bool runOnModule( Module & M ) { ... CallGraph &CG = this->getAnalysis<CallGraph>(); CallGraphNode *cgn; unsigned nref;

Hi Björn, 1) The pass pipeline syntax is documented here: https://github.com/llvm-project/llvm/blob/master/include/llvm/Passes/PassBuilder.h#L378 -die is not implemented, since the new pass manager does not support BasicBlock passes. But you can use dce instead: "-passes=dce" 2) I don't have a qualified answer here, but if I recall correctly, the trouble to correctly update the