similar to: [LLVMdev] Getting optimization level in getAnalysisUsage()

I have added -debug-pass=Structure, and found the following: ModulePass Manager X Analysis Unnamed pass: implement Pass::getPassName() FunctionPass Manager Module Verifier Bitcode Writer Pass Arguments: -x -y -z FunctionPass Manager X Analysis Y Construction Z Construction Even for getAnalysis<Y>(*F) and getAnalysis<Z>(&F), all the passes X,

Hi, I am using llvm-3.8 for my project. Following is my getAnalysisUsage() method: virtual void getAnalysisUsage(AnalysisUsage &AU) const override { AU.setPreservesAll(); AU.addRequired<X>(); AU.addRequired<Y>(); AU.addRequired<Z>(); } Now, if I call getAnalysis<X>(*F), instead of invoking just the X pass, all the passes, i.e., X, Y and Z are being

On Jun 17, 2013, at 7:03 AM, Benjamin Kramer <benny.kra at gmail.com> wrote: > > On 17.06.2013, at 15:56, Diego Novillo <dnovillo at google.com> wrote: > >> On 2013-06-15 16:39 , Benjamin Kramer wrote: >>> Do you want to take over this effort or should I poke more at it? >> >> Since you've already started, it's easier if you poke more at

[Splitting this out from the original thread to reduce noise in it] On 17.06.2013, at 18:43, Jakob Stoklund Olesen <stoklund at 2pi.dk> wrote: > > On Jun 17, 2013, at 7:03 AM, Benjamin Kramer <benny.kra at gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> On 17.06.2013, at 15:56, Diego Novillo <dnovillo at google.com> wrote: >> >>> On 2013-06-15 16:39 ,

On Jan 3, 2014, at 1:06 PM, Andrew Trick <atrick at apple.com> wrote: > > On Jan 3, 2014, at 12:10 PM, Jakob Stoklund Olesen <stoklund at 2pi.dk> wrote: > >> >> On Jan 3, 2014, at 11:01 AM, Andrew Trick <atrick at apple.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> On Jan 3, 2014, at 4:58 AM, Haishan <hndxvon at 163.com> wrote: >>>

Hi all! On 11/20/2009 06:29 PM, Devang Patel wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 6:54 AM, Andreas Neustifter wrote: >> >> If I use AU.addRequired<ProfileInfo>() in SelectionDAGISel.cpp the >> wrong ProfileInfo is used. It uses the "No ProfileInfo" implementation >> if ProfileInfo but not the one from ProfileInfoLoaderPass. (Which is >>

On Jan 3, 2014, at 11:01 AM, Andrew Trick <atrick at apple.com> wrote: > > On Jan 3, 2014, at 4:58 AM, Haishan <hndxvon at 163.com> wrote: > >> >> At 2014-01-01 04:36:21,"Andrew Trick" <atrick at apple.com> wrote: >> >> On Dec 31, 2013, at 3:52 AM, Haishan <hndxvon at 163.com> wrote: >> My update steps are shown

On 11/8/11 4:34 PM, ret val wrote: > I still have the addRequired: > virtual void getAnalysisUsage(AnalysisUsage&AU) const { > AU.addRequired<DominatorTree>(); > } > > The other line > DominatorTree *dt =&getAnalysis<DominatorTree>(); > Is for later use when I try to use PromoteMemToReg Isn't DominatorTree a

Awesome, that let me get far enough to trip: Assertion failed: (ResultPass && "Unable to find requested analysis info"), function getAnalysisID Is there something else I forgot? On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 5:47 PM, John Criswell <criswell at illinois.edu> wrote: > On 11/8/11 4:34 PM, ret val wrote: >> >> I still have the addRequired: >>         virtual

I still have the addRequired: virtual void getAnalysisUsage(AnalysisUsage &AU) const { AU.addRequired<DominatorTree>(); } The other line DominatorTree *dt = &getAnalysis<DominatorTree>(); Is for later use when I try to use PromoteMemToReg On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 4:22 PM, Michael Ilseman <michael at lunarg.com> wrote: > Something's

Something's different here, earlier in the thread you said you had: void getAnalysisUsage(AnalysisUsage &AU) const { AU.addRequired<DominatorTree>(); } Now you have: void getAnalysisUsage(AnalysisUsage &AU) const { DominatorTree *dt = &getAnalysis<DominatorTree>(); I'm sort of confused, why did this change happen? I think the

On 17.06.2013, at 15:56, Diego Novillo <dnovillo at google.com> wrote: > On 2013-06-15 16:39 , Benjamin Kramer wrote: >> Do you want to take over this effort or should I poke more at it? > > Since you've already started, it's easier if you poke more at it. Thanks. I've got a whole bunch of other things to go through. OK, will do. Jakob any comments on the

Since Jakob had expressed some concerns regarding machine-generated files, I asked him by email about his views on this RFC. Here are the emails that we exchanged in attach. Anyone feel free to jump in via the mailing-list. TIA -- Evandro Menezes Austin, TX emenezes at codeaurora.org Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc is a member of the Code Aurora Forum -------------- next

Hi Jakob, Did you get a chance to look at the patch? Thanks, Jyotsna -- Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation -----Original Message----- From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] On Behalf Of Jyotsna Verma Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2012 1:01 PM To: 'Jakob Stoklund Olesen' Cc: llvmdev at

Jakob Stoklund Olesen <stoklund at 2pi.dk> writes: > On Sep 19, 2012, at 10:49 AM, <dag at cray.com> wrote: > >> Jakob Stoklund Olesen <stoklund at 2pi.dk> writes: >> >> So if there are multiple values between r2 and r3 (r2.1, r2.2, etc.) I >> would just follow the chains implied by the SibValueInfo Deps array? >> Basically, I want to find

On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 3:10 PM, Jakob Stoklund Olesen <stoklund at 2pi.dk>wrote: > It predates the block frequency interface. It just needs to be hooked up, > patches welcome. It would also be nice to remove the floating point > computations from the spill placement code. Cool, if Diego doesn't beat me to it, I may send you a patch as that seems easy and obviously

On Jun 12, 2013, at 3:05 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 2:55 PM, Jakob Stoklund Olesen <stoklund at 2pi.dk> wrote: > That sounds plausible to me. It seems like we might need a way of representing call graph profiling in addition to the existing branch probabilities? > > Agreed. An important consideration here is WPO

On Sep 19, 2012, at 4:02 PM, dag at cray.com wrote: > Jakob Stoklund Olesen <stoklund at 2pi.dk> writes: > >> On Sep 19, 2012, at 10:49 AM, <dag at cray.com> wrote: >> >>> Jakob Stoklund Olesen <stoklund at 2pi.dk> writes: >>> >>> So if there are multiple values between r2 and r3 (r2.1, r2.2, etc.) I >>> would just follow

On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 5:22 PM, Tobias Grosser <grosser at fim.uni-passau.de>wrote: > 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

On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 2:55 PM, Jakob Stoklund Olesen <stoklund at 2pi.dk>wrote: > That sounds plausible to me. It seems like we might need a way of > representing call graph profiling in addition to the existing branch > probabilities? > Agreed. An important consideration here is WPO vs. LTO vs. TU-at-a-time call graphs. > FWIW, the greedy register allocator’s live range