similar to: [LLVMdev] Chaining analyses from an analysis group

Thank You. Actually i pass polly canonaclize IR to my new created polly pass called "mypass". Mypass should first detect scops then find depedndencies as the mechanism conventional approach. Now i know how to write llvm pass here i am writing pass as loadable module first afterwards i will integrate it with opt in the end. I tried writing following code. Could you please help me on

Hello everyone, I am trying to find the alias between a store instruction's pointer operand and function arguments. This is the code, virtual void getAnalysisUsage(AnalysisUsage &AU) const { AU.addRequiredTransitive<AliasAnalysis>(); AU.addPreserved<AliasAnalysis>(); } virtual bool runOnFunction(Function &F) { AliasAnalysis &AA =

That's the reason I have defined getAnalysisUsage method. Isn't that the right way to do it? borya043 wrote: > > Hello everyone, > I am trying to find the alias between a store instruction's pointer > operand > and function arguments. This is the code, > virtual void getAnalysisUsage(AnalysisUsage &AU) const { > >

Hi developers, I have some problems using a non-default alias analysis. I wrote a modulepass which needs a functionpass. The functionpass needs a type bases alias analysis instead of the basicaa. I added the command line parameter for this analysis to the opt invocation as follows: opt -tbaa -global-live-values test.bc The 'global-live-values' pass preserves all and requires a

It contains the bitcode file(without any optimization) of the below program, void map(int *a) { *a=20; } int main(){ int *a=(int *)malloc(sizeof(int)); *a=15; map(a); return 0; } I want to check if the pointer operand of each store instruction aliases with the function's arguments. I have used below code for this, virtual void getAnalysisUsage(AnalysisUsage &AU) const {

Hi, I have a question of using 2 SIP providers. Let's say I have provider A and provider B, and I would like my calls to go to A, and then B if A wasn`t available Something like this would work: exten => 1234,1,Dial(SIP/providerA) exten => 1234,2,Dial(providerB) exten => 1234,3,Hangup But what if I want to put in a delay? If I put 30 seconds on each of them, I'll wait a

I have modified the code as follows; now i am using both scopdetection and scopinformation before dependency check but i think link is missing... virtual bool runOnFunction(Function &F) { std::unique_ptr<ScopInfo> Result; std::unique_ptr<ScopDetection> Result2; //polly::ScopDetection pl; auto &LI = getAnalysis<LoopInfoWrapperPass>().getLoopInfo(); auto

Hi, I'm a bit confused about the distinction between addRequired and addRequiredTransitive in AnalysisUsage. From PassAnalysisSupport.h: "REQUIRES (must be available when the pass runs), REQUIRES TRANSITIVE (must be available throughout the lifetime of the pass)." The part that's confusing me is "must be available when the pass runs". I don't see how

How do you compile the code? Within the Polly subdirectory using CMake? How do you run your pass. Using "opt -mypass inputfile.ll"? Michael 2018-01-28 9:30 GMT-06:00 hameeza ahmed via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>: > Hello, > > I need to analyze dependencies in my llvm ir by using polly. i created a new > pass called mypass there i added polly dependency

HI Hameeza, what do mean by link is still missing? Currently it is not possible to use polyhedral information from within in-tree LLVM passes. This is because Polly is not currently part of the LLVM tree, and is only linked into the tools as an external project. I.e., you can't depend on Polly passes in an in-tree pass. What you can do, though, is use Polly from an out-of-tree context. If

On Mar 31, 2010, at 3:13 PM, Owen Anderson wrote: > Some analyses, like Andersen's AA, do all their computation in their > runOnFunction(). Therefore, anything they depended on can be > destroyed after the runOnFunction() returns. What about AA itself? Would addRequired<AliasAnalysis> keep AliasAnalysis alive (but allow AliasAnalysis's dependencies to die)? >

Hello, I have two passes, A and B. A is a function pass. B is a module pass. Each uses their getAnalysisUsage() method to .addRequired() several passes, and each .setPreserveAll()s. **Pass B requires pass A**. But, when I call getAnalysis<A> from within B, it exclaims: Assertion `ResultPass && "getAnalysis*() called on an analysis that was not "

On Wednesday 11 July 2007 15:07, Christopher Lamb wrote: > Could it be possible for there to be a harness type interface that > would allow coalescers that support both modes to be hooked into the > pass registration, and those that depend on the allocator not be > registered as passes? I have a patch for this kind of thing attached. Please take a look and let me know if it looks

Hello, I need to analyze dependencies in my llvm ir by using polly. i created a new pass called mypass there i added polly dependency analysis pass but when i execute this pass in gdb i get no data. Why is that so? My code is follows; namespace { struct mypass : public FunctionPass { static char ID; mypass() : FunctionPass(ID) { } virtual bool runOnFunction(Function &F) {

Hi, I wrote a module pass that uses Alias Analysis. For this reason I added AU.addRequired<AliasAnalysis>() to function getAnalysisUsage and used getAnalysis<AliasAnalysis>() in my pass. I tried a few types of alias analyses and I discovered that only alias analyses which are ImmutablePasses are returned using getAnalysis<AliasAnalysis>(). Moreover, when I added both

Good to know. I was referencing a local copy of 2.3 docs which didn't include the "does not require any module passes" statement. It appears the docs were changed two days before 2.4 was released in November. I suppose I should update my docs more often. Are there any plans to change this restriction, or any best practices to get similar behavior? Since immutable pass is a subclass

Ether, Sounds great! Please keep in mind that, eventually, we'll also want to configure those options from TLI (or something similar). The patch looks good to me. -Hal On Wed, 4 Apr 2012 23:54:18 +0800 Hongbin Zheng <etherzhhb at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Hal, > > I add a function named "vectorizeBasicBlock" which allow users to > perform basic block

Hello, I'd appreciate it if anyone can tell me what the error message means and point out what I am doing wrong. Thank you. I am trying to use the result of the DominatorTree analysis in my ModulePass class as explained in the section "Writing an LLVM Pass". http://llvm.org/docs/WritingAnLLVMPass.html#interaction I called the method "addRequired<DominatorTree>()"

Hi Hal, I add a function named "vectorizeBasicBlock" which allow users to perform basic block vectoirzation inside their pass. But i am not sure whether i missed something as no one use the function right now (But it will be used by Polly sometimes later[1]). In addition, we (tobi and me) also want to make the vectorizer being configured command line flags. To achieve this, we are

I have an analysis pass which uses Scalar Evolution information. My pass implements getAnalysisUsage as: virtual void getAnalysisUsage(AnalysisUsage &AU) const { AU.setPreservesAll(); AU.addRequiredTransitive<LoopInfo>(); AU.addRequiredTransitive<ScalarEvolution>(); AU.addRequiredTransitive<TargetData>(); } However, I am seeing cases where