similar to: ModulePass cannot be registered as EarlyAsPossible

On 13 Jan 2018, at 03:45, Craig Topper via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > I’m not sure what the correct way to do this is. I think your plugin needs to do something to tell clang/llvm when to run the pass. I’ll try to look later when I’m back at a computer. You need to use RegisterStandardPasses to add it to the default pipeline automatically. You can find an

Hi Tobias, I am trying to move Polly later. LLVM provides some predefined ExtensionPointTy: EP_EarlyAsPossible, EP_ModuleOptimizerEarly, EP_LoopOptimizerEnd, EP_ScalarOptimizerLate, ... Currently Polly uses "EP_EarlyAsPossible" to run as early as possible. As what you suggested: >Instead of removing canonicalization passes, I believe we may want to >move

Hi all, I was able to create a pass following [1]. Now goal is amend the pass and try to dump the call graph. I think I have properly amended the source extending my pass from CallGraphSCCPass but unfortunately every time I run it, it crashes. I tried with llvm-6 and llvm-7. I notice that if I change EP_EarlyAsPossible to anything else it does not crash but I don't see the expected string

Hello, I have created a ModulePass, that now needs LoopInfo information. The ModulePass registration is taken from [1]. I use clang to directly invoke it (This is also a hard requirement, because I need the fancy output of clang warnings/remarks). The problem is, that the dependency to the LoopInfoWrapperPass does not seem to work. The error is: --- snip --- clang-4.0:

I have taken SimplePass and added in Transform directory, “libLLVMSimplePass.a” is built but I can not see this pass in opt —help. I don’t even see the name of pass while registering it in the example. > On Jan 13, 2018, at 7:35 AM, David Chisnall <David.Chisnall at cl.cam.ac.uk> wrote: > > On 13 Jan 2018, at 03:45, Craig Topper via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>

Clang doesn’t support adding passes from the command line the way opt does. Opt has special parsing in opt.cpp for this that clang doesn’t have. I’m not sure what the correct way to do this is. I think your plugin needs to do something to tell clang/llvm when to run the pass. I’ll try to look later when I’m back at a computer. On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 7:00 PM 陳韋任 via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at

On 09/19/2013 04:46 PM, Star Tan wrote: > Hi Tobias, > > > I am trying to move Polly later. > > > LLVM provides some predefined ExtensionPointTy: > EP_EarlyAsPossible, > EP_ModuleOptimizerEarly, > EP_LoopOptimizerEnd, > EP_ScalarOptimizerLate, > ... > > > Currently Polly uses "EP_EarlyAsPossible" to run as early as

On 09/17/2013 04:12 AM, Star Tan wrote: > Now, we come to more evaluations on http://188.40.87.11:8000/db_default/v4/nts/recent_activity Hi Star Tan, thanks for this very extensive analysis. The results look very interesting. As you found out, just removing some canonicalization passes will reduce compile time, but this reduction may in large part being due to Polly not being able to

Hi Tobias, At 2013-09-19 22:59:25,"Tobias Grosser" <tobias at grosser.es> wrote: >On 09/19/2013 04:46 PM, Star Tan wrote: >> Hi Tobias, >> >> >> I am trying to move Polly later. >> >> >> LLVM provides some predefined ExtensionPointTy: >> EP_EarlyAsPossible, >> EP_ModuleOptimizerEarly, >>

On 14 Jan 2018, at 00:14, sangeeta chowdhary <sangitachowdhary at gmail.com> wrote: > > I have taken SimplePass and added in Transform directory, “libLLVMSimplePass.a” is built but I can not see this pass in opt —help. I don’t even see the name of pass while registering it in the example. The SimplePass example is intended to be built out of tree, so I’ve no idea what happens if you

Now, we come to more evaluations on http://188.40.87.11:8000/db_default/v4/nts/recent_activity I mainly care about the compile-time and execution time impact for the following cases: pBasic (run 45): clang -O3 -load LLVMPolly.so pNoGenSCEV (run 44): clang -O3 -load LLVMPolly.so -polly-codegen-scev -polly -polly-optimizer=none -polly-code-generator=none pNoGenSCEV_nocan (run 47): same option

Hi, Is there a way to implement named address spaces with clang/llvm as it is possible with gcc ? We would like to have our own named address space that would be recognized by the frontend. Thanks in advance! Regards, Sebastien

Hello, This is an RFC for adding intrinsics which perform saturating signed/unsigned left shift. There is currently a patch on Phabricator here: https://reviews.llvm.org/D83216 The intrinsics are of the form i32 @llvm.sshl.sat.i32(i32, i32) i32 @llvm.ushl.sat.i32(i32, i32) <4 x i32> @llvm.sshl.sat.v4i32(<4 x i32>, <4 x i32>) <4 x i32>

Hi all, I got a interesting problem when calling getNumOperands() of CallInst. For example, call void @_Z2f2PA100_i([100 x i32]* nonnull %arraydecay) If I use getNumOperands(), it will return 2. However, if I use getCalledFunction()->getNumParams(), it will return 1. According to the IR, I think the number of operands of the call instruction should be 1. I

I'm confused by your code. StaticInitializer seems to exist so you can create InitializeEverything, which doesn't get used. Do I need to do something along the lines of: static void registerPollyPasses(const llvm::PassManagerBuilder &Builder, llvm::PassManagerBase &PM) { PM.add(llvm::createPromoteMemoryToRegisterPass());

> Unfortunately, it looks like your email got garbled... Please attach patches > as actual files rather than as text at the end of the message, otherwise > lots of email software does the wrong thing with them... See attached. Sorry for that. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: clang.patch Type: text/x-patch Size: 1819 bytes Desc: not

Mhm I see now, thanks for your explanation! Son Tuan Vu On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 10:58 PM, Vedant Kumar <vsk at apple.com> wrote: > > On Mar 16, 2018, at 2:30 PM, Son Tuan VU <sontuan.vu119 at gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Vedant, > > Thank you for your reply. I think I can make this debugify-each mode, but > I guess this is reserved for your GSoC project ? > >

> On Mar 16, 2018, at 2:30 PM, Son Tuan VU <sontuan.vu119 at gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Vedant, > > Thank you for your reply. I think I can make this debugify-each mode, but I guess this is reserved for your GSoC project ? No, there's no reserved work. If you'd like to work on this I encourage you to do so. There's plenty of other work slated for the GSoC project.

Hi Vedant, Thanks for your reply. More comments inline. Son Tuan Vu On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 10:19 PM, Vedant Kumar <vsk at apple.com> wrote: > Hi, > > + Chandler, who has a lot more experience with our pass managers. > > On Apr 20, 2018, at 12:56 PM, Son Tuan VU <sontuan.vu119 at gmail.com> wrote: > > + Vedant: what do you think about the last point, since

Hi Vedant, Thank you for your reply. I think I can make this debugify-each mode, but I guess this is reserved for your GSoC project ? However, if I understand correctly, we do not want to take the output of the first check-debugify (I mean the .ll file with potentially all the WARNINGs and ERRORs after the first pass) as input for the second debugify. What we need is to take the fresh output of