similar to: [LLVMdev] Processing functions in call graph SCC "order" with function-level analyses

Thanks John. Does this solve the problem of analysis availability though? If I still have to run the function analyses manually, I might as well keep rolling with the CallGraphSCCPass. (I probably should have mentioned that this is what I’m using right now.) Félix > Le 2015-05-19 à 10:12:32, John Criswell <jtcriswel at gmail.com> a écrit : > > On 5/18/15 10:45 PM, Félix Cloutier

So I got very mixed results. With the CallGraphSCCPass, both `addRequired<DominatorTreeWrapperPass>` and `addRequired<MemoryDependenceAnalysis>` fail at runtime. The LLVM core has just two CallGraphSCCPasses and neither uses neither analyses, so it's hard to find a valid example. I transformed the pass into a ModulePass, using scc_iterator as shown in CGPassManager to process

Hi, I am using the scc_iterator class in my code on a CallGraph, where some functions are not called from within the module. It seems that scc_iterator does not list all SCCs if the graph is not connected; only those nodes connected to the node pointed to by GraphTraits<...>::getEntryNode() are returned. Can someone verify this behavior? Any tips on how I should go about extending the

I have a FunctionPass F that needs a list of all the SCCs for use in its doFinalization() method. Let's say I write a CallGraphSCCPass C that creates an array of all SCCs. Let C be required by F, and let F call getAnalysis<C>() from its doFinalization() method. Am I guaranteed that C's runOnSCC() method will have executed on all SCCs before F's doFinalization() method?

Hello guys, I'd like to use Clang to parse snippets of (and emit bytecode for) C++ code that come from larger files that don't contain only C++, but looking at the clang interpreter example, either I didn't get it, or it looks like the driver expects only files, and not strings or char buffers. Is there a simple way to achieve this? Do I have to split my input into small files and

>>> Does getAnalysis<CallGraph>() work? Thanks Edwin, that works! What about the CallGraphSCC ? It looks like one can declare a CallGraphSCCPass, but I don't see any other way to get the SCCs of the call graph. -- Nick Johnson

The title says it all. verifyFunction checks it (Verifier.cpp, line 728). Why can't BasicBlocks that serve as a function's entry point also have predecessors? What keeps a function from looping back to its beginning? Félix -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

Hi I see when LLVM builds the CallGraph SCCs. a function calling through a function pointer is conservatively assumed to call internal and external functions. Therefore, it has an edges pointing to the externalnode2, ie. the externalnode representing outgoing calls from this module. does LLVM have any function pointer analysis capabilities in the mainline ? Thanks, -Trent

Hi, I've been porting a project to LLVM 3.9 and found that the SCCP pass may remove calls to external functions if their return type is declared to be an empty struct. For instance: > %empty = type {} > > declare %empty @foo() > > define i32 @main() { > %1 = call %empty @foo() > ret i32 0 > } opt -sccp -S file.ll returns: > %empty = type {} > >

Hello, I'm writing a Function Pass. This function pass needs access to the CallGraph and CallGraph SCCs. Is there any way I can get CallGraph information without changing my pass to a CallGraphSCCPass ? Thanks, -- Nick Johnson

On 5/10/09, Török Edwin <edwintorok at gmail.com> wrote: > On 2009-05-10 20:11, Nick Johnson wrote: > > Hello, > > > > I'm writing a Function Pass. This function pass needs access to the > > CallGraph and CallGraph SCCs. Is there any way I can get CallGraph > > information without changing my pass to a CallGraphSCCPass ? > > > Does

Hey guys, I'd need to debug just-in-time compiled code under Mac OS. As predicted, GDB doesn't cope really well with it. The LLVM manual seems to say it's possible to patch GDB under Linux, but there seems to be no option for Mac OS. What can I do? I'd prefer a solution that integrates with Xcode, but I'll manage if it doesn't and I have to run the debugger externally.

Hi Félix, Sanjoy Das wrote: > Félix Cloutier via llvm-dev wrote: > > Assuming that this is a bug, what are the next steps? > > Looks like you already have a very small test case -- have you tried > sticking it in a debugger to see why SCCP thinks removing the call is > okay? > > Alternatively, file a bug at llvm.org/bugs and someone will get to it. The third

Hey guys, Whys are there like 5 variants of CreateCall in IRBuilder<> with numbers appended to them? The only difference I can see is the number of arguments. Aren't C++ function overloads be suited for this? Félix

I'm using Xcode 3 to program with LLVM and Clang (both about yesterday's latest revisions), and when I compile, I get 1501 link-time warnings. All those I read were about symbol visibility. Here's an example: ld: warning: namespace::class::method() has different visibility (default) in /usr/local/lib/libclangCodeGen.a(CodeGenAction.o) and (hidden) in

On Sep 3, 2009, at 4:15 AM, Hans Vandierendonck wrote: Hi, > > I am using the scc_iterator class in my code on a CallGraph, where > some > functions are not called from within the module. It seems that > scc_iterator does not list all SCCs if the graph is not connected; > only > those nodes connected to the node pointed to by > GraphTraits<...>::getEntryNode() are

Hello everyone, I've been watching LLVM since about a year now, and I thought it was finally time I'd do something with it. So I've got my hands dirty with a cool project (who knows? maybe I'll end up releasing it), but since I'm fairly new to the whole thing, there are still a number of things I'm not too sure about. First, the way we create instructions confuses me a

Hello Félix- Consider the following snippet of IR: define i32 @foo(i32 %n) nounwind { entry: br label %loop loop: %loop.n = phi i32 [0, %entry], [%tmp, %loop] call void @bar() nounwind %tmp = sub nsw i32 %loop.n, 1 %cmp = icmp eq i32 %tmp, 0 br i1 %cmp, label %exit, label %loop exit: ret i32 0 } declare void @bar() nounwind Try to merge the blocks "entry" and "loop"

Thanks Daniel, I'll do a debug build of LLVM (I guess that'll teach me) and step through it as soon as I'll find a power outlet. I'm calling getDependency on the load instruction, and it returns the store instruction. Suspiciously enough, calling invalidateCachedPointerInfo on load->getPointerOperand() does not cause my AA pass to be called again when I use getDependency (or

Hi all, I'm working with regions, and I was surprised by the region set of this function: > define void @foo() { > br i1 false, label %loop, label %end > > loop: > br i1 false, label %loop, label %end > > end: > ret void > } .dot file as generated by opt —view-regions attached. Essentially, there are 3 regions: one that has the whole function, one that has