similar to: Registering passes on a module

Hi Philip, Thanks for the response. Under llvm-5.0.2 and llvm-6.0.1 in Debug mode, the crash hit at the same assertion: /usr/local/include/llvm/IR/PassManager.h:689: typename PassT::Result& llvm::AnalysisManager<IRUnitT, ExtraArgTs>::getResult(IRUnitT&, ExtraArgTs ...) [with PassT = llvm::InnerAnalysisManagerProxy<llvm::AnalysisManager<llvm::Loop,

Hi all, I am trying to use LLVM's AliasAnalysis pass, but from a standalone tool that uses llvm libraries. The following is the code snippet I am currently using. PassBuilder PB; auto mod_manager = ModuleAnalysisManager { }; PB.registerModuleAnalyses(mod_manager); AAResults& AAR = mod_manager.getResult<AAManager>(*M); But the code fails at .getResult with the following error:

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. >

On 06/07/2018 06:11 PM, Chandler Carruth wrote: > We had already talked about this, so unsurprisingly I'm generally in > favor of the direction. Some comments below. > > On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 2:00 AM Fedor Sergeev <fedor.sergeev at azul.com > <mailto:fedor.sergeev at azul.com>> wrote: > >    - access through LLVM Context (allows to control life-time and

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

This question has been submitted to stackoverflow (https://stackoverflow.com/questions/51934964/function-optimization-pass) but someone suggested me that it should be submitted to llvm-dev mailing list instead. I'm sorry for the duplication. I am trying to use PassBulider and FunctionPassManager || to optimize a function in a module, what I have done is: mod = ...load module from LLVM

While trying to assemble a particular input file, my build system failed because the target object was too big. I calculated that the input source file after preprocessing would be about 3.91Mb. system: CYGWIN_NT-10.0 x86_64 Cygwin file: llvm-master/lib/Passes/PassBuilder.cpp build output: Scanning dependencies of target LLVMPasses [ 84%] Building CXX object

Frontends _are_ using PassBuilder, but they need to hook into the default pipeline creation to insert the sanitizer passes. On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 12:15 PM Fedor Sergeev <fedor.sergeev at azul.com> wrote: > Hmm... frontends should be using PassBuilder anyway. > And if they are using PassBuilder then they are using PassRegistry.def as > well - all the >

Correct me if I'm wrong, but is Module::CreateRNG(Pass *) unusable with the new PassManager? Since each pass is defined as a llvm::PassInfoMixIn<DerivedT> instead of inheriting from llvm::Pass, it doesn't seem possible to obtain the underlying llvm::Pass * from e.g. llvm::ModuleAnalysisManager. Would it make sense to change the definition/implementation to Module::CreateRNG(StringRef

Hi all, To implement more profile-guided optimizations, we’d like to use ProfileSummaryInfo (PSI) and BlockFrequencyInfo (BFI) from more passes of various types, under the new pass manager. The following is what we came up with. Would appreciate feedback. Thanks. Issue It’s not obvious (to me) how to best do this, given that we cannot request an outer-scope analysis result from an inner-scope

Hi Son, PassManagerBuilder is used to populate legacy PassManagers. That role is taken over by PassBuilder for new-PM passes. Cheers, Philip 2018-04-18 13:40 GMT+02:00 Son Tuan VU <sontuan.vu119 at gmail.com>: > Hi Philip, > > Thank you for your reply. So what would be the right way/API to write > out-of-tree pass? I've been using *PassManagerBuilder*, which requires a

Hi Philip, Thank you for your reply. So what would be the right way/API to write out-of-tree pass? I've been using *PassManagerBuilder*, which requires a callback refering to *legacy::PassManagerBase*, so I guess this will be no longer the good way to go? Son Tuan Vu On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 6:06 PM, Philip Pfaffe <philip.pfaffe at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Son, > > I have an

On 10/01/2018 05:01 PM, David Greene wrote: > > I think registration time is probably fine for IR/opt-level passes. For > codegen it will probably work 95% of the time but there are some cases > where we may not know at registration time whether the pass is needed or > not. I'm making the assumption that registration happens basically as > it does now, where the

+ Vedant: what do you think about the last point, since Debugify is also related? Son Tuan Vu On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 6:14 PM, Philip Pfaffe <philip.pfaffe at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Son, > > PassManagerBuilder is used to populate legacy PassManagers. That role is > taken over by PassBuilder for new-PM passes. > > Cheers, > Philip > > 2018-04-18 13:40 GMT+02:00

On 3/4/19 10:49 PM, Hiroshi Yamauchi wrote: > > > On Mon, Mar 4, 2019 at 10:55 AM Hiroshi Yamauchi <yamauchi at google.com > <mailto:yamauchi at google.com>> wrote: > > > > On Sat, Mar 2, 2019 at 12:58 AM Fedor Sergeev > <fedor.sergeev at azul.com <mailto:fedor.sergeev at azul.com>> wrote: > > > > On 3/2/19 2:38 AM,

On 10/01/2018 08:39 PM, David Greene wrote: > "Kaylor, Andrew" <andrew.kaylor at intel.com> writes: > >> What if in the registration interface we had three options: skippable, >> not skippable, and run at OptLevel::None. > I kind of like this idea. If necessary, the pass could even query the > target (or some other entity) about what OptLevel::None means.

Hi Son, I have an answer to your first question: 1, What are the differences between *LegacyPassManager* and *PassManager*? > I see that *opt* uses the former most of the times while the latter is > used via *PassBuilder* API when an user wants to build her own pipeline, > but I have no idea why so. What to use and when to use it is not clear to > me. > PassManager is the result

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 Debugify is also related? Could you clarify the question? I'm not sure what it is you'd like me to chime in about. > 2, I've asked this question once but

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

On Sat, Mar 2, 2019 at 12:58 AM Fedor Sergeev <fedor.sergeev at azul.com> wrote: > > > On 3/2/19 2:38 AM, Hiroshi Yamauchi wrote: > > Here's a sketch of the proposed approach for just one pass (but imagine > more) > > https://reviews.llvm.org/D58845 > > On Fri, Mar 1, 2019 at 12:54 PM Fedor Sergeev via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>