similar to: [LLVMdev] LLVM transformations dependences on analyses

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

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

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

but does it have default values ? Thanks Xin On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 5:19 AM, Che-Liang Chiou <clchiou at gmail.com> wrote: > You specify shader model, bit size and etc. arch-specified parameters > though -march, -mattr and -mcpu, but AFAIK, PTX backend does not use > the GPU thread/block/grid size information in optimization yet. > > On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 8:17 PM, Xin

I don't think so, but you should check source code. On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 9:58 PM, Xin Tong <xerox.time.tech at gmail.com> wrote: > but does it have default values ? > > Thanks > > Xin > > On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 5:19 AM, Che-Liang Chiou <clchiou at gmail.com> wrote: >> You specify shader model, bit size and etc. arch-specified parameters >>

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

ambika wrote: > Here is getAnalysisUsage() i am using, > > void getAnalysisUsage(AnalysisUsage &AU) const { > AU.setPreservesAll(); > AU.addRequired<DominatorTree>(); > } > > and then I use it as, > > > bool ptrTest::runOnModule(Module &M) { > > DominatorTree &DT = getAnalysis<DominatorTree>(); > ...... >

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

#include "llvm/Module.h" #include "llvm/Analysis/MemoryDependenceAnalysis.h" #include "llvm/Support/raw_ostream.h" using namespace llvm; struct Hello: public ModulePass { public: static char ID; MemoryDependenceAnalysis *MD; Hello(): ModulePass(ID) { ;; } virtual void getAnalysisUsage(AnalysisUsage &AU) const {

Hi again, I come back to this issue with an example. It's a pass which does nothing but throw the 'Unable to schedule' error. namespace { struct MyPass : public FunctionPass { static char ID; // Pass identification, replacement for typeid MyPass() : FunctionPass(ID) { initializeMyPassPass(*PassRegistry::getPassRegistry()); } virtual void

I do not know too much about clang, is opencl publicly supported in clang ? how about cuda ? Thanks Xin

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

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()

Hello I am trying to enable globalsmodref-aa by default. globalmodref-aa is a ModulePass and therefore can be invalidated and need to be rerun. I see globalsmodref-aa is enabled in LTO passmanager by adding the analysis pass explicitly. I wonder whether globalsmodref-aa can be enabled/run based on pass dependencies, i.e. those indicated in getAnalysisUsage(). Thanks, Xin -------------- next

On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 2:28 PM, John Criswell <criswell at illinois.edu> wrote: > On 7/19/12 1:23 PM, Jim Grosbach wrote: >> >> Not really, no. > > > If you really, really, wanted to do it, you could: > > 1) Hack the code generator to not use that register. It might be as simple > as modifying the TableGen file to not know that the register exists. In fact

On 7/19/12 1:23 PM, Jim Grosbach wrote: > Not really, no. If you really, really, wanted to do it, you could: 1) Hack the code generator to not use that register. It might be as simple as modifying the TableGen file to not know that the register exists. 2) Use inline asm to put the constant into that register and fetch it from that register. The real question is: what larger goal are you

Hi, I'm writing a function pass which is dynamically loaded by opt and I need some analysis and passes to be run before my pass: virtual void getAnalysisUsage(AnalysisUsage &AU) const { AU.addRequired<LoopInfo>(); AU.addPreserved<LoopInfo>(); AU.addRequiredID(LoopSimplifyID); AU.addPreservedID(LoopSimplifyID);

I have a constant parameter in a LLVM function. Is there a way to reserve a CPU register such that it also holds the value of the parameter in LLVM x86 codegen ? Thanks Xin

You specify shader model, bit size and etc. arch-specified parameters though -march, -mattr and -mcpu, but AFAIK, PTX backend does not use the GPU thread/block/grid size information in optimization yet. On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 8:17 PM, Xin Tong <xerox.time.tech at gmail.com> wrote: > I am wondering that how does the LLVM PTX backend find out the > constraints on executing GPU

2012/2/24 Xin Tong <xerox.time.tech at gmail.com>: > Hopefully you mean sometime in the evening on 29th. If this is the > case, count me in. Good point, I forgot to select a time :-) What about 19:00? > Thanks Cheers, Rafael