similar to: [LLVMdev] adding new data types to llvm

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

Hello . I'm trying to implement FunctionPass for detecting loops in llvm IR. How can I get <condition> for loop from llvm::Loop object.? Is there any example? Thanks in advance, Edvard  -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20120723/85e7f2f9/attachment.html>

Hello . opt -indvars pass does not generate canonical induction variable.  (NULL == loop->getCanonicalInductionVariable();) PLEASE explain why? and how can I fix it? Thanks in advance, Edvard  -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20120724/92a28ed5/attachment.html>

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);

One of the things I really liked about TestNG was the grouping feature. Are there any plans for rSpec to incorporate that? Is there any way to emulate that functionality in rspec? Will.

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) { >

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

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 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 { >>>

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

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 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 ] ;

It seems to me that the RSpec bundle''s ''it'' snippet is in need of some love. By default, a newly inserted spec passes. This seems odd as it is misleading. It also makes it harder find what specs still need to be completed if you return to an RSpec module after a break. I propose that the ''it'' snippet is changed to the following: it

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 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

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>();

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>();