similar to: Should analyses be able to hold AssertingVH to IR? (related to PR28400)

On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 7:51 PM, Sanjoy Das <sanjoy at playingwithpointers.com> wrote: > Hi Sean, > > Sean Silva wrote: > > While building test-suite with the new PM, I ran into problems with > > AssertingVH being triggered which is obvious in retrospect: > > https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=28400 > > > > Both cases I ran into revolve around LVI

This thread kinda died. I'd like to revive it. The new PM stuff is making excellent progress, and this is actually one of the last things to clean up. On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 1:10 AM Sean Silva <chisophugis at gmail.com> wrote: > Thoughts? For the moment I have put in a workaround (r274457) that makes > jump-threading invalidate LVI. > > > Is everybody happy with this

> On Jan 23, 2017, at 10:07 PM, Sean Silva <chisophugis at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 1:08 AM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at gmail.com <mailto:chandlerc at gmail.com>> wrote: > This thread kinda died. I'd like to revive it. > > The new PM stuff is making excellent progress, and this is actually one of the last things to

On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 11:17 PM, Sanjoy Das <sanjoy at playingwithpointers.com > wrote: > Hi Sean, > > Sean Silva wrote: > > > > But asan won't catch problems (insofar I understand how it works) if > > the free'ed BasicBlock is used as a key in a DenseMap or something -- > > if another BasicBlock gets allocated to the same location

On Jan 3, 2014, at 1:55 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> wrote: > > > > The key thing then is to make sure that it's safe to enable the > > assertions in the headers if an application is built with !NDEBUG and > > linked against an NDEBUG version of LLVM. > > Sounds great. I'm pretty confident that there will be no problems - in practice

On Nov 11, 2013, at 12:09 PM, Alp Toker <alp at nuanti.com> wrote: >> Even when you have a !NDEBUG build, the platform assert() is pretty >> crummy on Windows and generates, at best a UTF-16 dump, or sometimes >> just pops up a dialog. WebKit and other projects take the same approach >> and define their own assertion macros to deal with this portably. >>

On Jan 3, 2014, at 2:19 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> wrote: >> While having different components of LLVM and consumers of LLVM able to intermix NDEBUG and !NDEBUG built code freely without ABI issues is nice-to-have in my book, the functionality provided by AssertingVH is significantly more nice-to-have, and I don't see any easy ways to contain or limit the

Михаил wrote: > Thanks, but I replaceAllUsesWith() - works well, but I still get bug in > eraseFromParent(): > > While deleting: i32 (%class.B*, i32)* %_ZN1B1xEi > An asserting value handle still pointed to this value! > UNREACHABLE executed at /Users/neonomaly/LLVM/LLVM/lib/VMCore/Value.cpp:561! The replaceAllUsesWith + eraseFromParent pattern remains correct, but there's

It is ModulePass with AnalysisUsage of CallGraph Yours sincerely, Kadysev Mikhail 22.04.2012, в 5:20, Nick Lewycky написал(а): > Михаил wrote: >> Thanks, but I replaceAllUsesWith() - works well, but I still get bug in >> eraseFromParent(): >> >> While deleting: i32 (%class.B*, i32)* %_ZN1B1xEi >> An asserting value handle still pointed to this value! >>

On 03/01/2014 21:55, Chandler Carruth wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 1:20 AM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com > <mailto:clattner at apple.com>> wrote: > > n Nov 11, 2013, at 12:09 PM, Alp Toker <alp at nuanti.com > <mailto:alp at nuanti.com>> wrote: > > >> Even when you have a !NDEBUG build, the platform assert() is pretty

Михаил wrote: > It is ModulePass with AnalysisUsage of CallGraph Ah, then you'll need to update the CallGraph first. Use "CG.removeFunctionFromModule(F);" before deleting it. Nick > Yours sincerely, > Kadysev Mikhail > > 22.04.2012, в 5:20, Nick Lewycky написал(а): > >> Михаил wrote: >>> Thanks, but I replaceAllUsesWith() - works well, but I still

On Sun, Aug 7, 2016 at 4:55 PM, Philip Reames <listmail at philipreames.com> wrote: > Skimming the thread, this post is the clearest path forward I've seen. > Minor comments inline, but I generally like this framing. > > On 07/14/2016 08:04 PM, Chandler Carruth via llvm-dev wrote: > > We need better terminology to talk about this. I propose: > >

On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 1:48 AM, Sean Silva <chisophugis at gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 12:34 AM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at gmail.com> > wrote: > >> On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 12:25 AM Sean Silva <chisophugis at gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 11:39 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at

We need better terminology to talk about this. I propose: analysis-dependencies: analysis A uses result of analysis B when *running* an analysis and not used by the result query-dependencies: result of analysis A uses result of analysis B when evaluating a query data-structure-depnedencies: result of analysis A uses data structures from the result of analysis B inside its own data structures I

Hi Sean, Thanks for writing all of this up. I'll go back to my previous position: we need a general dependency graph built as the analysis cache is used. It should have the following properties: 1. When we call getResult or getCachedResult on an analysis manager, we record a dependency of the current pass on the returned result. 2. This dependency needs to be stored such that it can be

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

On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 8:39 PM, Sean Silva <chisophugis at gmail.com> wrote: > It looks like there is really no sane fix within the current > infrastructure. I've had to essentially trigger invalidation (except in the > PreservedAnalyses::all() case) in the function pass manager and function to > loop adapters. > invalidation of *everything* I mean. -- Sean Silva

----- 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" >

Thanks, but I replaceAllUsesWith() - works well, but I still get bug in eraseFromParent(): While deleting: i32 (%class.B*, i32)* %_ZN1B1xEi An asserting value handle still pointed to this value! UNREACHABLE executed at /Users/neonomaly/LLVM/LLVM/lib/VMCore/Value.cpp:561! Yours sincerely, Kadysev Mikhail 21.04.2012, в 23:45, Nick Lewycky написал(а): > Михаил wrote: >> How correctly

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Sean Silva" <chisophugis at gmail.com> > To: "Chandler Carruth" <chandlerc at gmail.com> > 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" >