similar to: [LLVMdev] Upgrading to llvm-2.9

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;

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. What's odd is that if I rearrange this (add required for DominatorTree before LoopInfo), it does not segfault. I realize that LoopInfo requires and preserves DominatorTree, but this

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

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

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

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:

Thanks for your last reply. Could I understand the way to adding a pass (built into the llvm rather than dynamic loadable) includes: 1. Declaring a creator function for this pass 2. Implementing the creator function for this pass 3. Instantiating this pass and get a object of it 3. Register this pass into the PassRegistry Then, for a built-into bytecode pass, task 1(declaration of the

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

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)

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

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

I write my pass in a mix way of NVPTXAllocaHoisting, NVPTXSplitBBatBar and transforms/Hello. The following is part of the codes: in NVPTXTargetMachine.cpp bool NVPTXPassConfig::addPreEmitPass() { addPass(createTest()); return false; } in NVPTXTest.h namespace llvm{

InstCombine says in its getAnalysisUsage that it preserves the CFG, but for the 4th argument in its INITIALIZE_PASS call, it says false, which I believe corresponds to whether it preserves the CFG. Is this a mistake, or is there deeper meaning here? InstructionCombining.cpp:73-82 char InstCombiner::ID = 0; INITIALIZE_PASS(InstCombiner, "instcombine", "Combine

All, I'm seeing duplication of DICompileUnits in a pass that worked in 3.8. I assume I'm doing something wrong. Would someone be willing to point me in the right direction? The below minimized pass reproduces my issue in 4.0 with the following error: DICompileUnit not listed in llvm.dbg.cu !1707 = distinct !DICompileUnit(language: DW_LANG_C_plus_plus, file: !1, producer: "clang

Dear all, I wrote a machine function pass to run with llc. But I get this error while building: "/home/erdem/llvm/lib/CodeGen/CodeGen.cpp:80: error: undefined reference to 'llvm::initializeNoopInserterPass(llvm::PassRegistry&)'" NoopInserter is the name of my pass. I already added this line to InitializePasses.h: "void

On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 5:02 PM, Arushi Aggarwal <arushi987 at gmail.com> wrote: > > >> Hi, >> Is it correct to convert, >>   %196 = load i32* %195, align 8                  ; <i32> [#uses=1] >>   %197 = zext i32 %196 to i64                     ; <i64> [#uses=1] >>   %198 = ptrtoint i8* %193 to i64                 ; <i64> [#uses=1]

Hi Michael, > InstCombine says in its getAnalysisUsage that it preserves the CFG, > but for the 4th argument in its INITIALIZE_PASS call, it says false, > which I believe corresponds to whether it preserves the CFG. that argument should be set to true if the pass only looks at the CFG, i.e. whatever it computes/does is only a function of the CFG, and doesn't otherwise depend on what

On 4/4/2011 6:45 PM, Eli Friedman wrote: > On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 5:02 PM, Arushi Aggarwal<arushi987 at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> Is it correct to convert, >>> %196 = load i32* %195, align 8 ;<i32> [#uses=1] >>> %197 = zext i32 %196 to i64 ;<i64> [#uses=1] >>> %198 =

Hi, 1. Does the alignment of the pointer returned by an AllocaInst depend on the instructions before it in the basic block? The 1st snippet below aligns 'a' correctly, while the 2nd one doesnt. (the method handle_args, only prints out the values of arguments, and returns argv unchanged). define i32 @main(i32 %argc, i8** %argv) nounwind { entry: %argc_addr = alloca i32

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.