similar to: [LLVMdev] Basic Block API

Rotem Varon wrote: > Hi, > > Is there an API for getting (within a basic block pass) the number of basic block in the program ? > Not of which I am aware. You will probably need to write code that does this for you. One place to put the code would be in the doInitialization() method of the BasicBlockPass that you're writing. However, I'm not sure if the count would be

Hi, Thank you for your answer. But let me get it straight, when i compile code with the llvm compiler, and my basic block pass is being processed, other passes are concurrently being processed ? Thanks. On Sat, May 23, 2009 at 7:01 PM, John Criswell <criswell at cs.uiuc.edu> wrote: > Rotem Varon wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Is there an API for getting (within a basic block

ether zhhb wrote: > hi John, > > sorry for reply so late. > > On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 10:38 PM, John Criswell <criswell at uiuc.edu > <mailto:criswell at uiuc.edu>> wrote: > > Devang Patel wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 6:41 PM, ether zhhb > <etherzhhb at gmail.com <mailto:etherzhhb at gmail.com>> wrote: > >

hi all, i have some thing not so sure about "scope" of llvm passes: suppose i have a function pass PassF and a BasicBlock analysis pass PassB. if i want to use the analysis result of PassB for a BasicBlock in PassF, i think i can create PassB in runOnFunction of PassF, and call runOnBasicBlock manually to get the result: PassB pb; //create a PassB //we also need consider the analysis

Devang Patel wrote: > On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 6:41 PM, ether zhhb <etherzhhb at gmail.com> wrote: > > >> that's because FunctionPass implement the "addLowerLevelRequiredPass" >> function, but others not. >> >> so, is there any special reason that only "addLowerLevelRequiredPass" is >> allow? >> >> > >

hi John, sorry for reply so late. On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 10:38 PM, John Criswell <criswell at uiuc.edu> wrote: > Devang Patel wrote: > >> On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 6:41 PM, ether zhhb <etherzhhb at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >>> that's because FunctionPass implement the "addLowerLevelRequiredPass" >>> function, but others

Hey everybody, good news for everyone interested in the PTX backend: We decided to release the current source code under the GPL - you can find the latest tarball here: http://www.prog.uni-saarland.de/projects/anysl You will find the README in the attachment, which should hopefully answer a lot of questions concerning the implementation and the current status. If you have further questions,

Hi everyone, I downloaded the latest version of LLVM PTX backend from http://www.prog.uni-saarland.de/projects/anysl and made the required changes to all the files mentioned in the README. But I get the following error when I compile it. llvm[3]: Compiling PTXBackend.cpp for Release build In file included from PTXBackend.h:70:0, from PTXBackend.cpp:36: PTXPasses.h: In constructor

Hi, I believe that my question isn't clear. So, please let me rephrase : I am running a basic block pass (and iterating through each instruction). Is it possible to convert the basic block instruction form llvm IR to x86 IRWITHIN the path ? I mean: is LLVM API exists for this purpose ? Again, thanks. On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 10:30 PM, me22 <me22.ca at gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun,

Chris Lattner wrote: > On Thu, 13 Jul 2006, Kenneth Hoste wrote: >> After browsing through the docs, at a first glance I think I should >> write a plugin for the 'analyze' tool. I think >> http://llvm.org/docs/WritingAnLLVMPass.html is where I should start from. >> The only problem I see now is that there doesn't seem to be a way to >> get

Hey all, We have been working on a pass that uses another pass to count loads and stores prior to performing its own instrumentation. The second pass adds the first as required via the usual getAnalysisUsage function. On one machine, it has been tested and proven to function correctly. On another machine, whenever the second pass is run, it consistently fails the assertion: opt:

The patch below basically hammers out some ideas as to where I'd like to take the passmanager in LLVM. I've tried thinking things through, but I'm still a n00b, so some criticism would be more than welcome. =) Starting from line 191 down. If you're wondering why I created a patch, well that's because I found thinking in passmanagert.h the most productive. -- Regards.

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

The virtual function Pass::runPass is a little deceptive; a pass that isn't a ModulePass can be run on a Module when run from a PassManager, but calling runPass(Module *) with the same pass does nothing. Also, runPass doesn't appear to be used anywhere. Can someone explain what runPass is for? Thanks, Dan

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

On Mon, 9 Jan 2006, Saem Ghani wrote: > The patch below basically hammers out some ideas as to where I'd like > to take the passmanager in LLVM. I've tried thinking things through, > but I'm still a n00b, so some criticism would be more than welcome. =) > > Starting from line 191 down. If you're wondering why I created a > patch, well that's because I found

> >> You can look at AddOptimizationPasses() in opt.cpp. > > > > As far as I understand, the two passmanager do not interleave their > > passes. It first runs all the function passes and below. Then all the > > module passes. So if you specify: > > > > opt -mymodulepass0 -myfunctionpass -mymodulepass1 > > > > What you actually get is:

I have a whole slew of questions about optimization passes. Answers to any or all would be extremely helpful: How important are doInitialization/doFinalization? I can't detect any difference if I use them or not. Why does the function pass manager have doInitialization/doFinalization, but the global pass manager doesn't? If I am applying the function passes to many functions, do I

Hi > One would expect this, its a facility of the C++ language. The anonymous > namespace is, essentially, the same as declaring everything in it > static. That is, the symbols are not exported and not available for > linking. Yes, it was pretty clear after finding out that this isn't a linking error which i suspected... > > So for all those trying to add an analysis path:

Right now, addPassesToEmitFile requires a FunctionPassManager. If I'm working with code that uses a plain PassManager and want it to generate code, are there any options better than doing this: /** * Wrapper class to run a FunctionPassManager as a ModulePass so that it * can be added to a plain PassManager. */ class FunctionPassManagerModulePass : public ModulePass { FunctionPassManager