similar to: [LLVMdev] YSU_Student

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. > >

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);

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) { >

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>();

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

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

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 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 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(); >

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 ] ;

Hi, I notice that there are several different methods called inside getAnalysisUsage(). The parameters of addRequiredID and addPreservedID are passID. What is the difference between Required and Preserved? There are also function named addRequired<PassName>() called. What is the difference between addRequired<PassName>() and addRequiredID(PassID)? Thanks a lot! Best,

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:

InstCombine says in its getAnalysisUsage that it preserves the CFG, but for the 4th argument in its INITIALIZE_PASS call, it says false, which I believe corresponds to whether it preserves the CFG. Is this a mistake, or is there deeper meaning here? InstructionCombining.cpp:73-82 char InstCombiner::ID = 0; INITIALIZE_PASS(InstCombiner, "instcombine", "Combine

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 Michael, > InstCombine says in its getAnalysisUsage that it preserves the CFG, > but for the 4th argument in its INITIALIZE_PASS call, it says false, > which I believe corresponds to whether it preserves the CFG. that argument should be set to true if the pass only looks at the CFG, i.e. whatever it computes/does is only a function of the CFG, and doesn't otherwise depend on what