similar to: [LLVMdev] 2.9 segfault when requesting for both LoopInfo and DominatorTree analyses.

Displaying 20 results from an estimated 2000 matches similar to: "[LLVMdev] 2.9 segfault when requesting for both LoopInfo and DominatorTree analyses."

2011 May 04
2
[LLVMdev] 2.9 segfault when requesting for both LoopInfo and DominatorTree analyses.
Thanks for the response. I do have assertions enabled, and none of them are getting hit. I did do a search of the mailing list for the past year (approximately) before writing my email, and what I found was that you should be allowed to use LoopInfo and other analysis function passes from a module pass, with the only difference being that getAnalysis is passed the function. The example code I
2011 May 04
0
[LLVMdev] 2.9 segfault when requesting for both LoopInfo and DominatorTree analyses.
Hi Michael, > When migrating my project to 2.9, I've encountered a strange segfault > where if a ModulePass's getAnalysisUsage adds LoopInfo and > DominatorTree, then llvm::PMTopLevelManager::findAnalysisUsage will > segfault. I suggest you build LLVM with assertions enabled - then you should get a helpful error message rather than a segfault. I think you are not allowed to
2011 May 04
0
[LLVMdev] 2.9 segfault when requesting for both LoopInfo and DominatorTree analyses.
Hi Michael, hi Duncan, yesterday I stumbled over something that might be related. At least I could also just be doing some initialization wrong or something in this direction... In my case, I hit a segfault in PassInfo::isAnalysisGroup() after PassManager.add(myModulePass) is called. My setup seems fairly simple, the attached code should reproduce the error. Compile with g++ test.cpp
2011 May 04
1
[LLVMdev] 2.9 segfault when requesting for both LoopInfo and DominatorTree analyses.
Your constructor is not calling initializeTestMPPass(), and you're using RegisterPass which I think was deprecated in favor of INITIALIZE_PASS. You can look at, for example, lib/Transforms/Scalar/IndVarSimplify.cpp for examples of how to initialize, e.g. having "INITIALIZE_PASS_DEPENDENCY(LoopInfo)" sandwiched between BEGIN and END. Note that you'll want a forward declaration of
2011 May 17
0
[LLVMdev] 2.9 segfault when requesting for both LoopInfo and DominatorTree analyses.
Hi, I am running into the same issue with a module pass, that calls LoopInfo.(does not call DominatorTree) I am using RegisterPass, since it is a dynamically loaded module(as per lib/Transforms/Hello) It does seem possible from the discussion, to use LoopInfo inside a ModulePass. I am wondering what the fix to this problem was. Also, the code works in 2.7.(I did not try 2.8) Thanks, Arushi
2011 Dec 14
2
[LLVMdev] Adding dependency on MemoryDependenceAnalysis pass to LICM causes opt to get stuck in addPass
I'm attempting to add some support for hoisting/sinking of memory-using intrinsics in loops, and so I want to use MemoryDependenceAnalysis in LICM, but when I modify getAnalysisUsge to include this : virtual void getAnalysisUsage(AnalysisUsage &AU) const { AU.setPreservesCFG(); AU.addRequired<DominatorTree>(); AU.addRequired<LoopInfo>();
2011 Dec 14
0
[LLVMdev] Adding dependency on MemoryDependenceAnalysis pass to LICM causes opt to get stuck in addPass
On Dec 14, 2011, at 7:09 AM, David Gardner wrote: > I'm attempting to add some support for hoisting/sinking of memory-using > intrinsics in loops, and so I want to use MemoryDependenceAnalysis in > LICM, but when I modify getAnalysisUsge to include this : > > virtual void getAnalysisUsage(AnalysisUsage &AU) const { > AU.setPreservesCFG(); >
2011 Aug 22
1
[LLVMdev] Infinite loop when adding a new analysis pass
I am trying to add an analysis pass as a FunctionPass, and let LICM (LoopPass) depends upon it. So in LICM.cpp, I have the following: virtual void getAnalysisUsage(AnalysisUsage &AU) const { AU.setPreservesCFG(); AU.addRequired<DominatorTree>(); AU.addRequired<LoopInfo>(); AU.addRequiredID(LoopSimplifyID); AU.addRequired<AliasAnalysis>();
2012 Mar 21
0
[LLVMdev] llvm seg fault when specifying addRequiredTransitive in module pass
Hi all, I am using llvm to perform some static analysis with a module pass. In getAnalysisUsage(), I specified some required passes by: addRequiredTransitive<LoopInfo>(); When I run my pass using opt, it crashes with segmentation fault with callstack: #0 0x0877aebd in llvm::PMTopLevelManager::findAnalysisUsage (this=0x8c10934, P=0xb15b988) at PassManager.cpp:573 #1 0x0877aa9b in
2011 Nov 08
4
[LLVMdev] loadable passes with dependencies?
Just shows me what I expect void getAnalysisUsage(AnalysisUsage &AU) const { DominatorTree *dt = &getAnalysis<DominatorTree>(); So I'm only using it for DominatorTree(so I can use PromoteMemToReg). Thanks On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 2:28 PM, Tobias Grosser <tobias at grosser.es> wrote: > On 11/08/2011 07:33 PM, ret val wrote: >> >> Sorry to keep dragging
2011 Nov 08
2
[LLVMdev] loadable passes with dependencies?
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
2011 Nov 08
2
[LLVMdev] loadable passes with dependencies?
Sorry to keep dragging this out on you. Im now getting: Assertion failed: (ResultPass && "getAnalysis*() called on an analysis that was not " "'required' by pass!"), function getAnalysisID But I already have: void getAnalysisUsage(AnalysisUsage &AU) const { AU.addRequired<DominatorTree>(); } And changed the bottom of my pass too: char Hello::ID =
2011 May 30
1
[LLVMdev] about writing a functionpass requiring a modulepass
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Qingan Li <ww345ww at gmail.com> Date: 2011/5/30 Subject: To: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu Hi, I wrote an analysis pass, myPass, inherited from both ModulePass and ProfileInfo, and this pass requires the CallGraph, i.e., * class myPass : public ModulePass, public ProfileInfo { ...};* * void myPass::getAnalysisUsage(AnalysisUsage &AU) const
2011 Nov 08
0
[LLVMdev] loadable passes with dependencies?
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
2011 Nov 08
0
[LLVMdev] loadable passes with dependencies?
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
2011 Nov 09
1
[LLVMdev] loadable passes with dependencies?
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
2011 Nov 08
2
[LLVMdev] loadable passes with dependencies?
I'm writing a Pass that I would like to remain loadable by opt. The pass also requires DominatorTree(for PromoteMemToReg). Looking for examples the only way I found to require a dependecny is by doing something like this: char Hello::ID = 0; namespace llvm { void initializeHelloPass(llvm::PassRegistry&); } INITIALIZE_PASS_BEGIN(Hello, "hello", "Hello
2011 Nov 08
0
[LLVMdev] loadable passes with dependencies?
On 11/08/2011 07:33 PM, ret val wrote: > Sorry to keep dragging this out on you. Im now getting: Assertion > failed: (ResultPass&& "getAnalysis*() called on an analysis that was > not " "'required' by pass!"), function getAnalysisID > > But I already have: > void getAnalysisUsage(AnalysisUsage&AU) const { >
2016 Jul 13
3
[PM] I think that the new PM needs to learn about inter-analysis dependencies...
On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 12:25 AM Sean Silva <chisophugis at gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 11:39 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at gmail.com> > wrote: > >> On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 11:34 PM Sean Silva <chisophugis at gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 11:32 PM, Xinliang David Li <davidxl at google.com>
2016 Jul 13
3
[PM] I think that the new PM needs to learn about inter-analysis dependencies...
On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 11:34 PM Sean Silva <chisophugis at gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 11:32 PM, Xinliang David Li <davidxl at google.com> > wrote: > >> >> >> On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 10:57 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Yea, this is a nasty problem. >>> >>> One