similar to: [LLVMdev] LoopInfo pass

The loop rotation pass does modify the function, which I'm guessing means that a FunctionPassManager can be used to run LoopPasses (this is not obvious to me after looking through the FunctionPassManager code). Unfortunately none of the other passes I'm using (ScalarEvolution, LCSSA, IndVarSimplify, and LoopUnroll) appear to have an effect. I verified that the function can be loop

Hi all, I'm attempting to perform loop unrolling on a single function using the C++ API. Maybe I missed something in the docs, but I cannot figure out a way to do this. The function I'm working with is very simple, containing a single for loop and not much else. I compiled the function to IR using clang with no optimizations enabled. My initial plan was to first run the IndVarSimplify

Hi! I'd like to analyze a function with the llvm::LoopInfo pass and then write some info to disk. I create a FunctionPassManager and insert it and a DominatorTree which is required by LoopInfo. As it turns out the analysis info is only available to other passes and gets cleared when the run function of the pass manager returns. I therefore guess that I need to create an own pass. Is this

On Thursday 11 March 2010 12:36:55 Jochen Wilhelmy wrote: > Hi! > > I'd like to analyze a function with the llvm::LoopInfo pass and then > write some info to disk. I create a FunctionPassManager and insert it and > a DominatorTree which is required by LoopInfo. > As it turns out the analysis info is only available to other > passes and gets cleared when the run function of

Hi, I am expieriencing strange behaviour of llvm's optimization passes and I don't understand what I am doing wrong. Basically all I've done is extracting code for optimization of a llvm-function in a llvm-module and put it into a separate function for better readability. The original code looks like follows (and works as expected): ----------------------------- std::string

Hi, I am expieriencing strange behaviour of llvm's optimization passes and I don't understand what I am doing wrong. Basically all I've done is extracting code for optimization of a llvm-function in a llvm-module and put it into a separate function for better readability. The original code looks like follows (and works as expected): ----------------------------- std::string

Daniel Dunbar wrote: > Ah, in this case llvm_shutdown isn't what you are looking for. I've > never looked at the Statistic implementation so I can't be any help > here, but if you poke around starting with "llvm/ADT/Statistic.h" you > may find a way to do what you want. I looked into that already, but Statistic.h only gives me the possibility to implement tracking

Hi, I would like to run the -O1 pass sequence followed by -reg2mem from an out of tree project which uses llvm. I am using the following code snippet to do so but in some cases, my method is also vectorising the code, which doesn't happen when running the same sequence(-S -O1 -reg2mem) through opt. Can someone please help me find what I am missing? Thanks, Akash. *

On 2008-12-19, at 06:59, Ralf Karrenberg wrote: > I am expieriencing strange behaviour of llvm's optimization passes > and I don't understand what I am doing wrong. > Basically all I've done is extracting code for optimization of a > llvm-function in a llvm-module and put it into a separate function > for better readability. The original code looks like follows

On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 1:43 AM, Ralf Karrenberg<Chareos at gmx.de> wrote: > Here is some example code that describes what I am doing: > > MyPass : ModulePass { > > bool runOnModule(mod) { > > for some Functions f in mod { > (do some stuff) > > ExistingModuleProvider mp(mod); > FunctionPassManager* fpm = > new FunctionPassManager(&mp); I think

Hello We are migrating from 2.9 to 3.2 Here is some code that does not compile any more llvm::PassManager *pm; llvm::FunctionPassManager *fpm; module = llvm::ParseBitcodeFile(mb,context,&err_str); if (!module) { error() <<"Failed to load module from bitcode file: " <<err_str <<endl; exit(1); } pm = new PassManager();

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

On Jun 21, 2007, at 4:13 PM, Dan Gohman wrote: > 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: That's what FPPassManager does (include/llvm/PassManagers.h) . Function pass manager itself is a module level pass.

Hi, I have 4 questions: 1. In legacy pass manager, we have following sequence of code in PassManagerBuilder.cpp PM.add( some_function_pass_1() ) PM.add( some_function_pass_2() ) why is it that we add function pass to a module pass manager? And does these 2 statements create 2 function pass managers ? 2. In new pass manager, the above code would look something like this. FunctionPassManager

Here is some timing information from running the Zig standard library tests: $ ./zig test ../std/index.zig --enable-timing-info Name Start End Duration Percent Initialize 0.0000 0.0010 0.0010 0.0001 Semantic Analysis 0.0010 0.9968 0.9958 0.1192 Code Generation 0.9968 1.4000 0.4032

I'm working on a whole program optimizer that uses LLVM as a library, and one of the things I want to do is eliminate dead global functions and variables even when they are not local to a module. (This understandably doesn't happen by default because the optimizer has to assume it could be compiling a library rather than a program.) I've actually written a function to do this, but

On 3/3/11 3:09 PM, Wenbin Zhang wrote: > Hi all, > I tried to have a LoopInfo object in a function pass, add > addRequired<LoopInfo> in getAnalysisUsage, and then use > getAnalysis<LoopInfo> in runOnFunction(). It worked OK. > Now I want to have a module pass to traverse the functions, and > similarly I want to have to loop information of the functions. When I >

Hi, So, does this mean that in legacy pass manager, when I run: PM.add( someFunctionPass() ) // PM is modulePassManager it creates FunctionPassManager, runs the function pass,destroys the functionPassManager and returns control to modulePassManager? Also, you have said that this wasn't the primary reason for the introduction of the new pass manager. But then is this one of the reasons?

I think this assertion failure may be caused by the getAnalysisUsage(). Mine is like the following: class myclass : public ModulePass{ ... virtual void getAnalysisUsage(AnalysisUsage &AU) const { AU.addRequired<LoopInfo>(); } ... } Is it enough? Thanks! Best, --Wenbin ----- Original Message ----- From: Wenbin Zhang To: John Criswell Cc: llvmdev at

Hello, I'm using Mono with experimental LLVM backend support on PowerPC. I noticed that although LLVM's IR contains SIMD instructions the assembly produced doesn't contain any Altivec instructions and my PowerPC970 machine of course has Altivec support. Isn't there some kind of autodetection? I searched in Target sources but only found out that Altivec is disabled by default. Can