similar to: AliasAnalysis supported by the new Pass Manager in v3.9 ?

Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE DROID On Jul 25, 2016 6:16 PM, Sean Silva <chisophugis at gmail.com<mailto:chisophugis at gmail.com>> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 9:27 AM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov<mailto:hfinkel at anl.gov>> wrote: >> >> >> ________________________________ >>> >>> From: "Sean

----- 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

The more closely I look at this, the more it seems like there may be a useful incremental step in the transition to the new PM: use the new PM analysis machinery in the old PM. If this is possible, it will simplify the old PM and (hopefully) allow an incremental transition to the new PM instead of a flag day transition for the switch. I.e., AFAICT, the new PM transition is essentially about 2

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: "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" >

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

I'm not quite sure what post to respond to for a status update, but I guess this one will do (and you can check my log for more info of course). My current working branch for the analysis manager stuff is at https://github.com/chisophugis/llvm/commits/analysis-manager (4ecf6115890bd01caa52c0b99424974e3469291e) I described in my log a bit more my thought process and how to do this without

Okay, did the big renaming and de-templating today (and removing the proxies). check-llvm worked fine, except that this test caught a bug (yay!): unittests/IR/PassManagerTest.cpp:326 After removing the proxies, the module pass is not invalidating the function passes (since the invalidation is on the module IRUnit). we now don't have a method for delegating the invalidation from outer

----- 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" >

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

I have the unified analysis manager implemented now and passing all tests at: https://github.com/chisophugis/llvm/commits/analysis-manager One caveat: It would be a layering violation for the analysis manager to know about Loop and SCC since those live in libAnalysis. So currently I have some stuff commented out for imitating the proxy downward invalidation for them. (and generally the proxy

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

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: > >

Hi Welson, the default alias analysis is -no-aa. As the name suggests it just returns MayAlias for everything. Maybe you are using that one? Best wishes, Duncan.

Thanks Duncan! You are right! If I type the command "opt -basicaa -mypass ...", then the output makes sense. Now, how can you specify which AA to use in the code? Regards, Welson On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 12:05 PM, Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr> wrote: > Hi Welson, the default alias analysis is -no-aa. As the name suggests it > just returns MayAlias for everything.

Just want to test out the LLVM's AliasAnalysis::getModRefInfo API. The input C code is very simple: void foo(int *a, int *b) { for(int i=0; i<10; i++) b[i] = a[i]*a[i]; } int main() { int a[10]; int b[10]; for(int i=0; i<10; i++) a[i] = i; foo(a,b); return 0; } Obviously, for "foo", it only reads from array "a" and only writes to array

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

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 gmail.com> > wrote: > >> On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 11:34 PM Sean Silva <chisophugis at gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 11:32 PM, Xinliang David Li <davidxl at google.com>

On 3/14/19 2:04 AM, Hiroshi Yamauchi wrote: > > > On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 2:37 PM Fedor Sergeev <fedor.sergeev at azul.com > <mailto:fedor.sergeev at azul.com>> wrote: > >> >> - Add a new proxy ModuleAnalysisManagerLoopProxy for a loop pass >> to be able to get to the ModuleAnalysisManager in one step and >> PSI through it. >

Overall seems fine to me. On 3/11/19 8:12 PM, Hiroshi Yamauchi wrote: > Here's a revised approach based on the discussion: > > - Cache PSI right after the profile summary in the IR is written in > the pass pipeline. This would avoid the need to insert > RequireAnalysisPass for PSI before each non-module pass that needs it. > PSI can be technically invalidated but unlikely