similar to: [LLVMdev] API CHANGE: RegisterPass going away

HI, Developers: I linked libLTO.so in $LLVMROOT/Debug/lib however, my program crashes in assertion at 149line [Pass.cpp] void RegisterPass(const PassInfo &PI) { bool Inserted = PassInfoMap.insert(std::make_pair(PI.getTypeInfo(),&PI)).second; assert(Inserted && "Pass registered multiple times!"); } i confirm that there is only one static variable

On Thursday 25 February 2010 19:24:30 Trevor Harmon wrote: > Hi, > > I'm confused about the is_analysis parameter of the RegisterPass > constructor (defined in PassSupport.h). The only explanation I can > find is that is_analysis should be set to true if the pass is "an > analysis pass, for example dominator tree pass". Can someone please > clarify what is meant

On Feb 25, 2010, at 5:45 PM, David A. Greene wrote: > The RegisterPass template takes care of notifying the PassManager > that the pass exists. One of the advantages of PassManager is > that it decouples pass execution from the rest of the infrastructure > so the class need not be visible to anything outside the > implementation > of the pass itself. Even though the

On Feb 26, 2010, at 7:42 PM, Tom Prince wrote: > You cannot refer to anything in anonymous namespace by name from > another file, however, if you have a pointer, say, then you can > still use the > pointer. Yes, that would make sense, except I don't see any pointers being passed. The relevant line in lib/Transforms/Hello.cpp is: static RegisterPass<Hello>

On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 05:22:49PM -0800, Trevor Harmon wrote: > On Feb 25, 2010, at 5:45 PM, David A. Greene wrote: > > > The RegisterPass template takes care of notifying the PassManager > > that the pass exists. One of the advantages of PassManager is > > that it decouples pass execution from the rest of the infrastructure > > so the class need not be visible to

Hi, I'm confused about the is_analysis parameter of the RegisterPass constructor (defined in PassSupport.h). The only explanation I can find is that is_analysis should be set to true if the pass is "an analysis pass, for example dominator tree pass". Can someone please clarify what is meant by "analysis pass"? Also -- and this is more of a C++ question than an

Let me rephrase to make sure I understand. Once we have this settled, I'll update the comments in the file to summarize and possibly update the docs. On 08/21/2015 10:27 AM, Owen Anderson wrote: > The macro versions should be preferred, as they reduce static initializaters. Makes sense. But the tradeoff is that they need to be baked into the list of known passes so that someone knows

I try to use INITIALIZE_PASS instead of RegisterPass<> to register my pass, though I don't understand what's their difference and how it works because its documents doesn't exist. But it still doesn't work. Parts of my codes is as follows: in NVPTXTest.h namespace llvm { void initializeNVPTXTestPass(PassRegistry &r); class NVPTXTest : public ModulePass { public:

I have seen INITIALIZE_PASS(LiveVariables, "livevars", "Live Variable Analysis", false, false); in the llvm/lib/codegen/LiveVariables.cpp, where LiveVariables is a subclass of MachineFunctionPass, and #define INITIALIZE_PASS(passName, arg, name, cfg, analysis) \ static RegisterPass<passName> passName ## _info(arg, name, cfg, analysis) in PassSupport.h Is this code used

I found that : "Code generator passes are registered and initialized specially by TargetMachine::addPassesToEmitFile and similar routines, so they cannot generally be run from the *opt* or *bugpoint* commands."...So how I can run a MachineFunctionPass? In the end, I just want to apply a DFS on a CFG of a function. And I need oriented edges and wanted to use

Does anyone know what the guidelines are supposed to be for properly initializing a pass? Looking around, we seem to have three styles of pass registration in use. INITIALIZE_PASS(...) INITIALIZE_PASS_BEGIN(...) INITIALIZE_PASS_DEPENDENCY(...) ... INITIALIZE_PASS_END(...) static RegisterPass<FooPass> X(...); (This is the one encouraged in the docs, but seemingly the least widely used

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

Hello everyone, I have written several complex passes till now, but I cannot write a MachineFunctionPass pass. It just gives me segfault. Hence I reduced the pass to the following form : using namespace llvm; namespace { class CFGexplorator : public MachineFunctionPass { public: static char ID; // Pass identification, replacement for typeid CFGexplorator() : MachineFunctionPass(ID)

namespace llvm { class PassRegistry; void initializeFooPass(PassRegistry&); } using namespace llvm; namespace { class Foo : public ModulePass { public: static char ID; Foo() : ModulePass(ID) { initializeFooPass(*PassRegistry::getPassRegistry()); } bool runOnModule(Module& M) { M.dump(); return false; } }; } char Foo::ID = 0;

Hi, Is the RegisterPass interface still supported, or do we have to use the INITIALIZE_PASS construct to register passes? Thanks, Arushi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20110516/98bc0ab0/attachment.html>

On Sep 14, 2007, at 2:46 PM, David Greene wrote: > On Friday 14 September 2007 16:04, David Greene wrote: >> On Friday 14 September 2007 15:51, Chris Lattner wrote: >>> When basicaa registers itself as part of the analysis group, it >>> uses: >>> >>> RegisterPass<BasicAliasAnalysis> >>> X("basicaa", "Basic Alias

On Oct 30, 2012, at 3:15 PM, Krzysztof Parzyszek <kparzysz at codeaurora.org> wrote: > On 10/30/2012 4:10 PM, Ashwin kumar wrote: >> >> Assertion failed: (PI && "Expected required passes to be initialized"), >> function schedulePass, file PassManager.cpp, line 597. >> >> >> I register the passes using RegisterPass function call.

On Sep 30, 2013, at 10:11 PM, Dirk Schroetter <dschroetter at googlemail.com> wrote: > Folks, > > I did read the documentation but I am at a loss still. > > I do have the following: > > Pass *createFooPass (char *foo1) { > return new FooPass (foo1); > } > > static RegisterPass<FooPass> X("foo-pass", "foo", false, true); >

Folks, I did read the documentation but I am at a loss still. I do have the following: Pass *createFooPass (char *foo1) { return new FooPass (foo1); } static RegisterPass<FooPass> X("foo-pass", "foo", false, true); Where exactly do I supply the non-default crore in this example ? Thanks /Dirk

Forgot to reply to the list. -- John T. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] MAJOR API CHANGE: Pass initialization without static constructors Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2010 15:05:21 -0500 From: John Criswell <criswell at illinois.edu> To: Owen Anderson <resistor at mac.com> On 10/8/10 1:29 PM, Owen Anderson wrote: > Hello fellow LLVM-ers, > > As