similar to: [LLVMdev] Loop carried dependence analysis?

Hi, The DependenceAnalysis pass will find loop-carried dependences. However, it is a conservative analysis and will sometimes suggest there may be more dependences than actually exist. In your example, I expect the analysis is confused for some reason and is returning the default confused response. You could test it using the isConfused() method. Note that the DVEntry::ALL direction is always

Below is a stripped down version of the pass. The compile line is: clang -O0 -S -emit-llvm -o test.S test.c && opt -S -mem2reg -load <path to extract lib> -extract < test.S > test_opt.S #include "llvm/Analysis/DependenceAnalysis.h" #include "llvm/Analysis/LoopInfo.h" #include "llvm/Analysis/LoopPass.h" #include

Hi, I am trying to use the DependenceAnalysis pass to get the Distance vector for the innermost loop. I am in LLVM learing process. I have used the following code inside my original code to get the distance vector. It is not giving any syntax error but it is has some logical but and giving segmentation fault. void getAnalysisUsage(AnalysisUsage &AU) const { AU.setPreservesAll();

Hi Arnaldo, On 05/11/12 10:02, Arnaldo wrote: > Hi Duncan, thanks for the quick answer. > > Yes I'm sure the runOnModule is being called, and when I dump the functions > before exiting the method I can see the AlwaysInline attribute. > > I'll check InlineAlways.cpp and will reimplement as last resource but I still > wonder why this is not working. if you want more

Hi Duncan, thanks for the quick answer. Yes I'm sure the runOnModule is being called, and when I dump the functions before exiting the method I can see the AlwaysInline attribute. I'll check InlineAlways.cpp and will reimplement as last resource but I still wonder why this is not working. On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 5:03 PM, Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr> wrote: > Hi Arnaldo,

Preston, thanks for the explanation and patch. Now it's printing the direction and distance values. On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 12:22 PM, Preston Briggs <preston.briggs at gmail.com>wrote: > Erkan, you're right. Sorry about that. > Attached is the most recent version. > > Preston > > > > Hi Preston, >> I am trying to use DA as well. I used your example

Erkan, you're right. Sorry about that. Attached is the most recent version. Preston Hi Preston, > I am trying to use DA as well. I used your example and commands that you > wrote in order to get DA information. > However, it does not report any dependence info. > I am wondering whether your local copy differs from the one on the > repository ? > Thanks. > Erkan.

On 13.11.2012, at 10:46, erkan diken <erkandiken at gmail.com> wrote: Hi all, Unfortunately, all my Hunks are failed when I apply : patch -p1 < da.patch command. The problem might be due to the fact that da.patch file was created against revision 167549, but I am on revision 167719 (I believe the most recent one). I am not sure if this cause the problem ? But Preston may I ask you to

Hi all, Unfortunately, all my Hunks are failed when I apply : patch -p1 < da.patch command. The problem might be due to the fact that da.patch file was created against revision 167549, but I am on revision 167719 (I believe the most recent one). I am not sure if this cause the problem ? But Preston may I ask you to generate the patch file against revison 167719 ? Thanks in advance. On

> If you don't want critical edges in the machine code CFG, you're going to > have to write a machine code CFG critical edge splitting pass: LLVM > doesn't currently have one. > > -Chris Hey guys, I've coded a pass to break the critical edges of the machine control flow graph. The program works fine, but I am sure it is not the right way of implementing it.

Hi, A number of transforms are actually independent, so here's a partial fix. I updated the dependencies in a cluster of transforms: LowerSwitch, Mem2Reg, LowerSelect, LowerAllocations, UnifyFunctionExitNodes. The patch has been tested, but not extensively. PassManager doesn't complain, and the result of a test pass that requires all these (except for LowerAllocations) together works

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Qingan Li <ww345ww at gmail.com> Date: 2011/5/30 Subject: To: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu Hi, I wrote an analysis pass, myPass, inherited from both ModulePass and ProfileInfo, and this pass requires the CallGraph, i.e., * class myPass : public ModulePass, public ProfileInfo { ...};* * void myPass::getAnalysisUsage(AnalysisUsage &AU) const

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>();

Hi, I wrote an analysis pass, myPass, inherited from both ModulePass and ProfileInfo, and this pass requires the CallGraph, i.e., * class myPass : public ModulePass, public ProfileInfo { ...};* * void myPass::getAnalysisUsage(AnalysisUsage &AU) const {* * AU.addRequired<CallGraph>();* * AU.setPreservesAll();* *}* Then, I assumes the UnreachableBlockElim (inherited from

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

Hi, Sorry for the spam, but perhaps someone has seen this before and can answer. I am trying to add a new register allocator to my target, and would like to use the Strong Phi Elimination pass. I am doing the following in my allocator virtual void getAnalysisUsage(AnalysisUsage &AU) const { AU.addRequiredID(MachineDominatorsID); AU.addRequiredID(StrongPHIEliminationID);

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'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>();

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(); >

Hi Preston, Thank you for the prompt response. You can use DependenceAnalysis to get the info you want by expensively > testing all pairs of memory references. Isn't all pairs testing incorrect in the sense that a pair may only exist for a certain path? Consider the following example. A[i] = 42; // S1 if( condition ) // C1 { A[i] = 20; // S2 } B[i] = A[i];