similar to: Intended behavior of CGSCC pass manager.

On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 11:29 PM, Xinliang David Li <davidxl at google.com> wrote: > > > On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 3:26 AM, Sean Silva <chisophugis at gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 8:14 PM, Xinliang David Li <davidxl at google.com> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 4:38 PM, Sean

On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 12:36 PM, Sanjoy Das via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Hi, > > Does it make sense to change RefSCCs to hold a list of > RefSCC-DAG-Roots that were split out of it because of edge deletion? > Then one way to phrase the inliner/function pass iteration would be > (assuming I understand the issues): > >

Hi Chandler, Philip, Mehdi, (and llvm-dev,) (this is partially a summary of some discussions that happened at the last LLVM bay area social, and partially a discussion about the direction of the CGSCC pass manager) A the last LLVM social we discussed the progress on the CGSCC pass manager. It seems like Chandler has a CGSCC pass manager working, but it is still unresolved exactly which

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Sean Silva via llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> > To: "llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> > Sent: Wednesday, June 8, 2016 6:19:03 AM > Subject: [llvm-dev] Intended behavior of CGSCC pass manager. > Hi Chandler, Philip, Mehdi, (and llvm-dev,) > (this is partially a summary of some discussions that

> On Jun 8, 2016, at 9:32 AM, Hal Finkel via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > From: "Sean Silva via llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> > To: "llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> > Sent: Wednesday, June 8, 2016 6:19:03 AM > Subject: [llvm-dev] Intended behavior of CGSCC pass manager. > > Hi Chandler,

On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 12:31 PM, Xinliang David Li <davidxl at google.com> wrote: > > > On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 4:19 AM, Sean Silva <chisophugis at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi Chandler, Philip, Mehdi, (and llvm-dev,) >> >> (this is partially a summary of some discussions that happened at the >> last LLVM bay area social, and partially a discussion

On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 8:14 PM, Xinliang David Li <davidxl at google.com> wrote: > > > On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 4:38 PM, Sean Silva <chisophugis at gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 12:31 PM, Xinliang David Li <davidxl at google.com> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 4:19 AM, Sean

On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 9:39 AM, Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org> wrote: > > > On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 4:19 AM, Sean Silva <chisophugis at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi Chandler, Philip, Mehdi, (and llvm-dev,) >> >> (this is partially a summary of some discussions that happened at the >> last LLVM bay area social, and partially a discussion about

On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 3:10 PM, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> wrote: > > On Jun 8, 2016, at 2:54 PM, Sean Silva <chisophugis at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 9:39 AM, Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org> wrote: > >> >> >> On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 4:19 AM, Sean Silva <chisophugis at gmail.com> wrote:

On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 11:51 PM, Sean Silva <chisophugis at gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 11:07 PM, Xinliang David Li <davidxl at google.com> > wrote: > >> >> >> On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 10:47 PM, Sean Silva <chisophugis at gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 9:53

On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 10:47 PM, Sean Silva <chisophugis at gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 9:53 PM, Xinliang David Li <davidxl at google.com> > wrote: > >> >> >> On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 11:12 AM, Sanjoy Das < >> sanjoy at playingwithpointers.com> wrote: >> >>> Hi Sean, >>> >>> On Thu, Jun

On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 11:12 AM, Sanjoy Das <sanjoy at playingwithpointers.com > wrote: > Hi Sean, > > On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 4:48 AM, Sean Silva via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > One question is what invariants we want to provide for the visitation. > > > > For example, should a CGSCC pass be able to assume that all

Hello all, It's been a month since my previous email on the topic, and since then I've done some initial work on porting the coroutines passes to the new pass manager. In total there are 6 patches -- that's a lot to review, so allow me to introduce the changes being made in each of them. # What's finished In these first 6 patches, I focused on lowering coroutine intrinsics

On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 12:27 AM, Sean Silva <chisophugis at gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 12:10 AM, Xinliang David Li <davidxl at google.com> > wrote: > >> >> >> On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 11:51 PM, Sean Silva <chisophugis at gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 11:07

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Sean Silva" <chisophugis at gmail.com> > To: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov> > Cc: "Xinliang David Li" <davidxl at google.com>, "llvm-dev" > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>, "Davide Italiano" > <dccitaliano at gmail.com>, "Tim Amini Golling" >

Hi Mikhail, As Brian noted, stuff like this works better in the new pass manager. Even in the old pass manager I thought it should work though. Did you initialize the pass, via `INITIALIZE_PASS_DEPENDENCY(PostDominatorTreeWrapperPass)`? Did you require it, via ` AU.addRequired<PostDominatorTreeWrapperPass>();`? Btw. May I ask what you are planning to do? Cheers, Johannes On 01/07,

Dear all, I would like to use the PostDominatorTree in ArgPromotion. I did not find an example of how to use function level analysis inside CallGraphSCCPass. I tried to follow an example of how to use function-level pass in a module pass, but I hit "llvm_unreachable" in PMDataManager::addLowerLevelRequiredPass. What would be a proper way to make PostDominatorTree available in

> To clarify, we're trying to provide this invariant on the "ref" graph or > on the graph with direct calls only? I think the invariant need only apply > to the former > More clarification needed :) What do you mean by 'invariant need only apply to the former'? > if we're relying on this for correctness (i.e. an analysis must visit all > callees

On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 4:00 PM, Philip Reames <listmail at philipreames.com> wrote: > Given I didn't get any response to my original query, I chose not to invest > time in this at the time. I am unlikely to get time for this in the near > future. > > On 12/07/2015 03:13 PM, Easwaran Raman wrote: > > (Resending after removing llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu and using >

On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 4:51 PM, Philip Reames <listmail at philipreames.com> wrote: > > > On 12/10/2015 04:29 PM, Xinliang David Li wrote: >> >> On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 4:00 PM, Philip Reames >> <listmail at philipreames.com> wrote: >>> >>> Given I didn't get any response to my original query, I chose not to >>> invest