similar to: [LLVMdev] Adding required function passes to CallGraphSCCPass

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:

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: > 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've written a CallGraphSCCPass that compiles successfully, but when I try to run it with opt, it fails: Symbol not found: __ZTIN4llvm16CallGraphSCCPassE If I simply change the pass to be a FunctionPass or a ModulePass, opt can run it just fine. I'm on Mac OS X, so I thought perhaps I was running into bug #2771 [1], but I'm getting the same error on Ubuntu Linux:

Hi, I am writing a CallGraphSCCPass that uses LoopInfo which is a FunctionPass. However, doing so results in the following error. **** Unable to schedule 'Natural Loop Information' required by '......' **** Google led me to this page, where Devang Patel suggests implementing the addLowerLevelRequiredPasses in CGPassManager in a manner similar to MPPassManager.

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

Hi, A number of transforms are actually independent, so here's a partial fix. I updated the dependencies in a cluster of transforms: LowerSwitch, Mem2Reg, LowerSelect, LowerAllocations, UnifyFunctionExitNodes. The patch has been tested, but not extensively. PassManager doesn't complain, and the result of a test pass that requires all these (except for LowerAllocations) together works

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

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 functions have been visited. So there's

On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 2:33 AM, vinay m <mvinay05041990 at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > Is it possible to recreate the LoopInfo analysis in my pass? > No. You need your pass to be a FunctionPass in order to use the LoopInfo (and associated) analyses. > > Thanks , > Vinay > > On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 2:34 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com>wrote:

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

-----Original Message----- From: Trevor Harmon <Trevor.W.Harmon at nasa.gov> Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 4:46 PM To: Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr> Cc: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] CallGraphSCCPass: symbol not found > On Jul 12, 2010, at 11:37 PM, Duncan Sands wrote: > > > $ c++filt _ZTIN4llvm16CallGraphSCCPassE >

In the old pass manager a coarser-grain pass cannot depend on a fine-grain pass (or analysis). In this case, the coarser-grain is the Inliner (CallGraphSCCPass) and the finer a FunctionPass. The reason is that the finer-grain pass has its own "pass manager", i.e. it runs all the passes and analysis (in that pass manager) on one function, frees them, and continues with the next function

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

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?

Hi, I'm trying to use analysis results from a CallGraphSCCPass in a ModulePass. Here is the relevant code: struct MyCallGraphSCCPass : CallGraphSCCPass { ... bool runOnSCC(CallGraphSCC& scc){...} }; char MyCallGraphSCCPass::ID = 0; static RegisterPass<MyCallGraphSCCPass> X("cgscc", "Dummy CG SCC pass"); struct MyModulePass : public ModulePass {

Sorry for the delay. Yeah, that error message is a bit confusing. What's happening is that your pass sequence is invalid. Once the IR has been lowered to machine code, its too late to run LLVM IR passes (ModulePass, FunctionPass, CallGraphSCCPass, etc.). At that point, you need to run a Machine*Pass, e.g. MachineFunctionPass. If you need to run an IR level pass, you need to use

Hi, Is it possible to recreate the LoopInfo analysis in my pass? Thanks , Vinay On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 2:34 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com>wrote: > This is not currently supported by the LLVM pass manager system. It is a > serious deficiency that I (and others) would like to address, but it > requires significant changes to the pass manager and analysis

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