similar to: [LLVMdev] Function Pass Manager

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

On 4/12/12 3:32 AM, Ivan Llopard wrote: > 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) { >

On 6/5/12 10:39 AM, Ralf Karrenberg wrote: > Hi John, > > On 6/5/12 4:31 PM, John Criswell wrote: >> On 4/12/12 3:32 AM, Ivan Llopard wrote: >>> 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 { >>>

Hello, I wrote my own pass which needs to do some loop unrolling. I can perform loop unrolling via opt: opt -mem2reg -loops -loop-simplify -loop-rotate -lcssa -loop-unroll -unroll-count=50 mytest.bc -o mytest.bc This command works perfectly. However, what I really want is to produce the **same behavior** but from my own pass (i.e., I don't want to use opt). I wrote a Module pass which

Hi John, On 6/5/12 4:31 PM, John Criswell wrote: > On 4/12/12 3:32 AM, Ivan Llopard wrote: >> 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

Hello, I wrote my own pass which needs to do some loop unrolling. I can perform loop unrolling via opt: opt -mem2reg -loops -loop-simplify -loop-rotate -lcssa -loop-unroll -unroll-count=50 mytest.bc -o mytest.bc This command works perfectly. However, what I really want is to produce the **same behavior** but from my own pass (i.e., I don't want to use opt). I wrote a Module pass which

On Aug 6, 2012, at 6:04 AM, Jorge Navas <navas at comp.nus.edu.sg> wrote: > > Hello, > > I wrote my own pass which needs to do some loop unrolling. > > I can perform loop unrolling via opt: > > opt -mem2reg -loops -loop-simplify -loop-rotate -lcssa -loop-unroll > -unroll-count=50 mytest.bc -o mytest.bc > > This command works perfectly. > >

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>();

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>();

Hello . I would like to add new custom data type to llvm C parser, I use LLVM/Clang version 3.1. Adding new type instructions from llvm.org site are out of date (http://llvm.org/docs/ExtendingLLVM.html#type). Could you please provide me with guidance? Thanks in advance, Edvard  -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

Hello, I have two for loops (one inside the other), that after indvars, looprotate, etc. (the important here is the loop rotate), is similar to this (I've stripped the real operations): define i32 @f() nounwind { entry: br label %bb1 bb1: ; preds = %bb3, %bb1, %entry %i.0.reg2mem.0.ph = phi i32 [ 0, %entry ], [ %i.0.reg2mem.0.ph, %bb1 ], [ %indvar.next9, %bb3 ] ;

On Sat, Jul 12, 2008 at 3:45 PM, Julio <julio.martin.hidalgo at gmail.com> wrote: > I would need to operate in the two loops in rotated form. It can be > considered a bug or I have to introduce manually the header (or modify > myself the ConsiderForLoop to my particular problem)? Try adding "AU.addRequiredID(LoopSimplifyID);AU.addPreservedID(LoopSimplifyID);" to your

Hello . I'm trying to implement LoopPass. Here is simple code :    class LoopParser: public llvm::LoopPass   {     public:       static char ID;     public:       virtual void getAnalysisUsage(llvm::AnalysisUsage &AU) const       {         AU.addRequiredID(llvm::LoopSimplifyID);         AU.addPreservedID(llvm::LoopSimplifyID);         AU.addRequired<llvm::LoopInfo>();       }    

Hi Edvard, _ZTIN4llvm8LoopPassE is "typeinfo for llvm::LoopPass". LLVM is built without typeinfo, so you will need to build your pass with -fno-rtti. Ciao, Duncan. > I'm trying to implement LoopPass. > Here is simple code : > > class LoopParser: public llvm::LoopPass > { > public: > static char ID; > > public: > virtual

i am getting seg fault on functions like I->eraseFromParent also. I'm assuming that the problem comes when i change the loop structure. On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 4:05 AM, Sreeraj a <writetosrj at gmail.com> wrote: > The funny thing is that i am manually able to hoist the Loop invariant > instruction to the basicBlock terminator, by editing the human readable form > and then

The funny thing is that i am manually able to hoist the Loop invariant instruction to the basicBlock terminator, by editing the human readable form and then using llvm-as to convert it into bytecode. On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 4:01 AM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > > On Nov 17, 2010, at 1:38 PM, Sreeraj a wrote: > > > Thanks Chris, > > > > I was

Just noticed that quite a few passes like LoopSimplify are implemented in a single .cpp file ... this makes it impossible to specify LoopSimplify using the "addRequired" method. Was there any particular reason to do it this way? I wouldn't mind doing the splitting myself, though I am not using the CVS versions right now. Also, it would be nice to have support for some sort of a

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(); >

On Fri, Apr 29, 2005 at 08:10:17AM -0500, Chris Lattner wrote: > AU.addRequiredID(LoopSimplifyID); > > "LoopSimplifyID" is a marker that is used to identify the pass, which is > exported from the .cpp file. I'll have to declare a PassInfo* called LoopSimplifyID inside namespace llvm, in order for that to compile correctly, right? I was wondering why not simply

On Fri, 29 Apr 2005, Sameer D. Sahasrabuddhe wrote: > Just noticed that quite a few passes like LoopSimplify are implemented > in a single .cpp file ... this makes it impossible to specify > LoopSimplify using the "addRequired" method. Was there any particular > reason to do it this way? I wouldn't mind doing the splitting myself, > though I am not using the CVS