similar to: [LLVMdev] MachineFunctionPass

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

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)

Hello , I have written a very simple MachineFunction Pass that currently does nothing. It compiles fine but when I try to load it with llc it give me following error: llc -optimize-regalloc=0 -load lib/GCRA.dylib -regalloc=gc test/fibo.bc Pass 'Bundle Machine CFG Edges' is not initialized. Verify if there is a pass dependency cycle. What is going wrong here ? Here is my very simple

sorry to wrap up this old mailing - but did you guys figure out how you can run a machineFunctionPass with "TargetMachine::addPassesToEmitFile" ? Thank you Ben

Well, I've been before hours trying this, but soon after I sent the email I found something. However is quite intriguing. I just changed the order of and the static libraries that I was linking. How can this be possible?? I'm using Cmake for building my llvm projects, so I choose the order and I pick the .a libraries I want to link by hand... Thank you, alvaro 2009/3/8 Álvaro

Chris Lattner wrote: > On Mar 27, 2010, at 12:49 PM, Peter Shugalev wrote: > >>>> New method of emitting object code is ok for me. But it is still >>>> experimental, isn't it? >>> Yes. >> Thank you for answers! >> >> Now there is a way to implement what I'd like to. But it would be MUCH >> better if

On Mar 27, 2010, at 1:50 PM, Peter Shugalev wrote: > Chris Lattner wrote: >> On Mar 27, 2010, at 12:49 PM, Peter Shugalev wrote: >> >>>>> New method of emitting object code is ok for me. But it is still >>>>> experimental, isn't it? >>>> Yes. >>> Thank you for answers! >>> >>> Now there is a way to implement

Hi, Long time ago (llvm-svn june 2008) I asked here about a way to output the assembly code of my JIT generated code to a string, so I could use it to read it on the screen. I came up with this solution: std::string Err; const llvm::TargetMachineRegistry::entry* _arch = llvm::TargetMachineRegistry::getClosestTargetForJIT(Err); std::string FeaturesStr; llvm::TargetMachine*

On Sun, 21 Jan 2007, Marcel Weiher wrote: > just installed the new llvm 1.9 build and noticed that my code no > longer worked. It seems something has changed with > addPassesToEmitFile(). First, the arguments to that method changed so > that it no longer takes a PassManager, but only a > FunctionPassManager. Instead there is a addPassesToEmitWholeFile() > method, but that is

When you say 'static libraries' do you mean static libraries or shared objects (.so)... Because if you mean shared objects, then it could very well explain you crash. On Mar 9, 12:16 am, Álvaro Castro Castilla <alvaro.castro.casti... at gmail.com> wrote: > Well, I've been before hours trying this, but soon after I sent the > email I found something. However is quite

Hi, I'm embarrassed that I can't figure this out... I have a compiler that outputs my module in either .s assembly format or .obj binary format, either one works just fine. But if I try to output both of them by adding passes, LLVM throws an Assert: void WinCOFFStreamer::EmitLabel(MCSymbol *Symbol) { assert(Symbol->isUndefined() && "Cannot define a symbol

I wanted to bring this up again. I still try to get access to the assembler of a jit-compiled function/module using llvm 3.8 and later. In 3.8 the interface to addPassesToEmitFile has changed and my old method doesn't work any more. In principle one gets the asm with targetMachine->addPassesToEmitFile( PM , *OS , llvm::TargetMachine::CGFT_AssemblyFile ) where *OS is a

Hi, Just realized that ability to generate static object code (e.g. ELF w/o using JIT) is no longer available in 2.7 (at least in release_27 branch). For example > llc -filetype=obj whatever.bc doesn't work in Linux environment anymore (well it wasn't fully implemented before but it worked for simple bytecodes in 2.6). I used to generate code by creating TargetMachine and

Hi folks, just installed the new llvm 1.9 build and noticed that my code no longer worked. It seems something has changed with addPassesToEmitFile(). First, the arguments to that method changed so that it no longer takes a PassManager, but only a FunctionPassManager. Instead there is a addPassesToEmitWholeFile() method, but that is marked as optional, and when I change my code to

On Mar 26, 2010, at 6:24 PM, Peter Shugalev wrote: > Hi, > > Just realized that ability to generate static object code (e.g. ELF w/o > using JIT) is no longer available in 2.7 (at least in release_27 branch). > > For example >> llc -filetype=obj whatever.bc > doesn't work in Linux environment anymore (well it wasn't fully > implemented before but it worked

Hi Jakob, I have been trying to learn how the CodeGen passes work and I am playing around with the -debug-pass option. I tried implementing a bare CallGraphSCCPass based Pass in the CodeGen which basically does nothing for now. I mostly tried to replicate what RegAlloc passes do. I did this instead of modifying the existing RegAlloc passes to use CallGraphSCCPass because that was becoming way too

Hello, I'm trying to catch assembly output and do some formatting for its presentation while being executed. I face a problem, which is clear from the error, although I have no clue on how to do it otherwise. If generating the code for its asm output and then for jit execution I get: ********** static llvm::MachineFunction& llvm::MachineFunction::construct(const llvm::Function*, const

Hi folks, just installed the new llvm 1.9 build and noticed that my code no longer worked. It seems something has changed with addPassesToEmitFile(). First, the arguments to that method changed so that it no longer takes a PassManager, but only a FunctionPassManager. Instead there is a addPassesToEmitWholeFile() method, but that is marked as optional, and when I change my code to

On Wednesday 11 July 2007 15:07, Christopher Lamb wrote: > Could it be possible for there to be a harness type interface that > would allow coalescers that support both modes to be hooked into the > pass registration, and those that depend on the allocator not be > registered as passes? I have a patch for this kind of thing attached. Please take a look and let me know if it looks

On Thu, Jun 21, 2007 at 04:37:14PM -0700, Devang Patel wrote: > > On Jun 21, 2007, at 4:13 PM, Dan Gohman wrote: > > > Right now, addPassesToEmitFile requires a FunctionPassManager. If I'm > > working with code that uses a plain PassManager and want it to > > generate > > code, are there any options better than doing this: > > That's what