similar to: [LLVMdev] Warnings when using opt for read-only (preserving) passes

Trevor Harmon wrote: > Hi, > > I've written a FunctionPass that happens to be read-only (preserving): > It doesn't modify the code in any way; it just does some analysis and > dumps out the results for each function by overriding > FunctionPass::print. I now need to make some changes to the pass, and > these changes will mean that the results cannot be known until all

On Jul 22, 2010, at 2:05 PM, John Criswell wrote: > If you write your pass as a ModulePass, then you can iterate over the > functions in any order that you want. I had considered that, but my FunctionPass depends on other passes processing the functions first: void MyPass::getAnalysisUsage(AnalysisUsage &AU) const { AU.addRequired<UnifyFunctionExitNodes>();

Trevor Harmon wrote: > On Jul 22, 2010, at 2:05 PM, John Criswell wrote: > > >> If you write your pass as a ModulePass, then you can iterate over the >> functions in any order that you want. >> > > I had considered that, but my FunctionPass depends on other passes > processing the functions first: > Two things to consider: 1) The PassManager

John Criswell wrote: > Trevor Harmon wrote: >> On Jul 22, 2010, at 2:05 PM, John Criswell wrote: >> >> >>> If you write your pass as a ModulePass, then you can iterate over the >>> functions in any order that you want. >>> >> >> I had considered that, but my FunctionPass depends on other passes >> processing the functions first:

I have a ModulePass, which we'll call MP, that generates a dependency graph for an entire program. I want MP to require the UnifyFunctionExitNodes pass, which is a FunctionPass. Since its not possible to make a ModulePass depend on a FunctionPass, is my only choice to make MP a FunctionPass in which the runOnFunction() routine does nothing, and the doFinalization routine does all the

Trevor Harmon wrote: > Hi, > > I would like my FunctionPasses to be invoked in reverse call graph > order (callees before callers). However, "Writing an LLVM Pass" notes > that "FunctionPass's do not require that they are executed in a > particular order." Is there any way at all to specify an ordering? > > If this is not possible, I'm

Hi, I would like my FunctionPasses to be invoked in reverse call graph order (callees before callers). However, "Writing an LLVM Pass" notes that "FunctionPass's do not require that they are executed in a particular order." Is there any way at all to specify an ordering? If this is not possible, I'm thinking of a workaround in which my runOnFunction method

On Wed, 21 Feb 2007, Ryan M. Lefever wrote: > I am writing an interprocedural compiler pass. Because the passneeds > information from a FunctionPass, e.g., the post-dominance frontier > (PDF), and because a ModulePass is not permitted to require a > FunctionPass, I am forced to make my pass a FunctionPass and do majority > of its work in the doFinalization() method. ok > When

I am writing an interprocedural compiler pass. Because the passneeds information from a FunctionPass, e.g., the post-dominance frontier (PDF), and because a ModulePass is not permitted to require a FunctionPass, I am forced to make my pass a FunctionPass and do majority of its work in the doFinalization() method. When I run "opt -mypass -verify -o code2.bc code1.bc" I get no

Hello again, First of all, thanks for all the answers =) they really helped a lot =D *Have you verified that some other pass is not adding the function declarations back in after your pass is executed (e.g., by using the -debug-pass=Executions argument to see what passes run after your pass)?* I considered that for a moment, but I realized that wouldn't be possible for two reasons: I

I followed what you said and called verifyModule() with the AbortProcessAction option. verifyModule() returns false, but does not abort and does not print out any information about what caused the verification to fail. Chris Lattner wrote: > On Wed, 21 Feb 2007, Ryan M. Lefever wrote: >> I am writing an interprocedural compiler pass. Because the passneeds >> information from a

I also tried iterating through the functions of the module and calling verifyFunction(), which also returns false, but does not cause an abort or report anything to stderr about what caused the verification to fail. From the doxygen for verifyFunction() and verifyModule(), it seems like they both should print information to stderr if the verification fails and should abort opt if

I am trying to write a ModulePass which requires PostDominator sets for every function in the module. Now finding post dominators is a function pass. The link on the llvm.org website says that : "Currently it is illegal for a ModulePass<http://llvm.org/docs/WritingAnLLVMPass.html#ModulePass>to require a FunctionPass <http://llvm.org/docs/WritingAnLLVMPass.html#FunctionPass>.

I think I misread the doxygen. verifyFunction & verifyModule return false if no errors are detected. However, my question now becomes why does the code produced by my transform pass verification, but it causes an assertion failure in the byte reader when it (the code produced by my transform) is passed to another invocation of opt? Ryan M. Lefever wrote: > I also tried iterating

On 5/6/15 11:15 AM, Kuperstein, Michael M wrote: > > I’ve always thought that the only guarantee is that > doFinalization(Module &M) runs after runOnFunction() was executed for > all functions in M, and there’s no guarantee it runs *immediately* after. > > That is, a PM may run a bunch of function passes over each function, > and only then call doFinazliation() for each

On 5/6/15 10:19 AM, Kuperstein, Michael M wrote: > > Hello Cristiano, > > I don’t think doFinalization() is really meant to be used this way. > My understanding is that doInitialization() and doFinalization() are designed specifically for modifying the LLVM IR (otherwise, why would a mutable reference to the Function be provided)? If that is not the case, then there is either a

On 8/9/11 9:15 AM, Bjorn Reese wrote: > On 2011-08-09 16:48, John Criswell wrote: >> On 8/9/11 6:49 AM, Bjorn Reese wrote: >>> I have an optimization pass (FunctionPass) where I need to add global >>> constructors. >>> >>> For cleaness sake I decided to add these in my own module. My module >>> is created in my FunctionPass constructor:

Larry, On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 4:55 PM, Larry Gritz <lg at larrygritz.com> wrote: > I have a whole slew of questions about optimization passes. Answers to any > or all would be extremely helpful: > > How important are doInitialization/doFinalization? Most of the passes do not use them. > I can't detect any difference if I use them or not. Say, if you are writing

Shuguang Feng wrote: >> What does "llc -debug-pass=Structure" say? Is the ProfileLoaderPass >> really the last pass to touch the ProfileInfo before you are using it? > > Below is the sequence of passes that I see. Although the > NoProfileInfo pass is being run, it should be subsequently overridden > by ProfileInfoLoaderPass (LoaderPass) correct? Yes. >

> >> 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: