similar to: [LLVMdev] loadable passes with dependencies?

Displaying 20 results from an estimated 1000 matches similar to: "[LLVMdev] loadable passes with dependencies?"

2011 Nov 08
0
[LLVMdev] loadable passes with dependencies?
On 11/08/2011 03:20 AM, ret val wrote: > 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
2011 Nov 08
2
[LLVMdev] loadable passes with dependencies?
I'm confused by your code. StaticInitializer seems to exist so you can create InitializeEverything, which doesn't get used. Do I need to do something along the lines of: static void registerPollyPasses(const llvm::PassManagerBuilder &Builder, llvm::PassManagerBase &PM) { PM.add(llvm::createPromoteMemoryToRegisterPass());
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 Nov 08
0
[LLVMdev] loadable passes with dependencies?
On 11/08/2011 03:40 PM, ret val wrote: > I'm confused by your code. StaticInitializer seems to exist so you can > create InitializeEverything, which doesn't get used. > > Do I need to do something along the lines of: > static void registerPollyPasses(const llvm::PassManagerBuilder&Builder, >
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
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 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 { >
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 May 03
4
[LLVMdev] 2.9 segfault when requesting for both LoopInfo and DominatorTree analyses.
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
2011 Nov 08
0
[LLVMdev] loadable passes with dependencies?
On 11/08/2011 08:50 PM, ret val wrote: > 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). Interesting. Is the same assert triggered when you use RegisterPass to register the pass? Is getAnalysisUsage()
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>();
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
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 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>();
2012 Oct 30
1
[LLVMdev] Error when trying to chain two llvm transform passes
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.
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
2004 Nov 29
2
[LLVMdev] Running specific passes
On Friday 26 November 2004 19:56, Chris Lattner wrote: > On Fri, 26 Nov 2004, Vladimir Prus wrote: > > in the implementation of some analysis, I need to change the program and > > then invoke Mem2Reg pass. That pass, in turn, requires other analysis, so > > I must > > Usually you want to do this at a higher level, why not just use 'opt > -yourpass -mem2reg'?