similar to: LLVM Pass to count reachable BB

Hello, I need to analyze dependencies in my llvm ir by using polly. i created a new pass called mypass there i added polly dependency analysis pass but when i execute this pass in gdb i get no data. Why is that so? My code is follows; namespace { struct mypass : public FunctionPass { static char ID; mypass() : FunctionPass(ID) { } virtual bool runOnFunction(Function &F) {

I have modified the code as follows; now i am using both scopdetection and scopinformation before dependency check but i think link is missing... virtual bool runOnFunction(Function &F) { std::unique_ptr<ScopInfo> Result; std::unique_ptr<ScopDetection> Result2; //polly::ScopDetection pl; auto &LI = getAnalysis<LoopInfoWrapperPass>().getLoopInfo(); auto

HI Hameeza, what do mean by link is still missing? Currently it is not possible to use polyhedral information from within in-tree LLVM passes. This is because Polly is not currently part of the LLVM tree, and is only linked into the tools as an external project. I.e., you can't depend on Polly passes in an in-tree pass. What you can do, though, is use Polly from an out-of-tree context. If

How do you compile the code? Within the Polly subdirectory using CMake? How do you run your pass. Using "opt -mypass inputfile.ll"? Michael 2018-01-28 9:30 GMT-06:00 hameeza ahmed via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>: > Hello, > > I need to analyze dependencies in my llvm ir by using polly. i created a new > pass called mypass there i added polly dependency

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Chandler Carruth" <chandlerc at google.com> > To: "Katya Romanova" <Katya_Romanova at playstation.sony.com>, "Nick Lewycky" <nlewycky at google.com> > Cc: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu, "Philip Reames" <listmail at philipreames.com>, "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov>,

On 25 February 2015 at 10:58, Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org> wrote: > > > On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 6:26 AM, Rafael Espíndola > <rafael.espindola at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > Maybe. >> > My view is the ideal is either no-unreachable code, or unreachable >> > blocks >> > only contain terminators. >> >> I am

Thank You. Actually i pass polly canonaclize IR to my new created polly pass called "mypass". Mypass should first detect scops then find depedndencies as the mechanism conventional approach. Now i know how to write llvm pass here i am writing pass as loadable module first afterwards i will integrate it with opt in the end. I tried writing following code. Could you please help me on

>> all the zero paths from entry to %a pass by %b. > > > That is a graph-wise definition, sure. > So, this is an interesting definition, and maybe this is part of the source > of the problem. > > For SSA, at least GCC requires that both "definition block dominates use > block" (which would be true here), *and* > that "definition appears before use in

Hi! I have a small issue with the JumpThreading pass (in opt). As described in the code (JumpThreading.cpp), the pass may if certain criteria are fulfilled duplicate the content of a block. If the duplicated block contain a call to @llvm.dbg.declare() you will end up with invalid code as the intrinsic @llvm.dbg.declare() only should occur once for each variable. I think the JumpThreading

I'm seeing some very unexpected behavior in a ModulePass I've created. To support both the legacy and new pass managers, I've abstracted away the code to get the passes it depends on: bool MyPass::runOnModule(Module &M) override { auto DominatorGetter = [this] (Function &F) -> DominatorTree & { return

Hm. I assumed that JumpThreading would be the primary factor in optimizing code like this. Guess not. I'll need to look into SimplifyCFG to see what prevents it from doing the same thing to the other loop: https://godbolt.org/z/F6NjdG On Mon, Feb 3, 2020 at 3:09 PM Michael Kruse <llvmdev at meinersbur.de> wrote: > I assumed the LLVM-IR behind the godbolt link represented the C code

Hello, I want to display the variable names in stringref iterator. But it is not displayed using following code. for (set<StringRef>::iterator sit = L.begin(); sit != L.end(); sit++) { errs() << *sit << " "; } How to do this? Please help.. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

On Jul 7, 2011, at 10:15 PM, Carlo Alberto Ferraris wrote: > Nella citazione giovedì 7 luglio 2011 19:41:16, John McCall ha scritto: >> On Jul 7, 2011, at 4:33 AM, Carlo Alberto Ferraris wrote: >>> Il 07/07/2011 11:14, Cameron Zwarich ha scritto: >>>> I haven't read the code in detail, but it looks like JumpThreading at least attempts to thread across indirect

Thank You. Still getting errors.I have modified my instructions as you said as follows: def GATHER_256B : I<0x68, MRMSrcMem, (outs VR_2048:$dst, VK64WM:$mask_wb), (ins VR_2048:$src1, VK64WM:$mask, i2048mem:$src2), "GATHER_256B\t{$src2, {$dst} {${mask}}|${dst} {${mask}}, $src2}", [(set VR_2048:$dst, VK64WM:$mask_wb, (v64i32 (masked_gather

Nella citazione giovedì 7 luglio 2011 19:41:16, John McCall ha scritto: > On Jul 7, 2011, at 4:33 AM, Carlo Alberto Ferraris wrote: >> Il 07/07/2011 11:14, Cameron Zwarich ha scritto: >>> I haven't read the code in detail, but it looks like JumpThreading at >>> least attempts to thread across indirect branches. You can either try >>> to fix it or file a

Hello, I did as you said, Please tell me whether the following correct now?? def GATHER_256B : I<0x68, MRMSrcMem, (outs VR_2048:$dst, _.KRCWM:$mask_wb), (VR_2048:$src1, _.KRCWM:$mask, ins i2048mem:$src2), "GATHER_256B\t{$src2, {$dst}{${mask}}|${dst} {${mask}}, $src2}"), [(set VR_2048:$dst, _.KRCWM:$mask_wb, (v64i32 (GatherNode

i want to implement gather for v64i32. i wrote following code. def GATHER_256B : I<0x68, MRMSrcMem, (outs VR_2048:$dst), (ins i2048mem:$src), "GATHER_256B\t{$src, $dst|$dst, $src}", [(set VR_2048:$dst, (v64i32 (masked_gather addr:$src)))], IIC_MOV_MEM>, TA; def: Pat<(v64f32 (masked_gather addr:$src)), (GATHER_256B

On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 2:14 AM, Anastasiya Ruzhanskaya via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > I am trying to print it like this (maybe here is smth wrong?) > > > LazyValueInfo &LV = getAnalysis<LazyValueInfoWrapperPass>().getLVI(); > DominatorTree &DT = > getAnalysis<DominatorTreeWrapperPass>().getDomTree(); > LV.printLVI(F,

I am able to vectorize it with the following code; #include <stdio.h> #define N 100351 // This function computes 2D-5 point Jacobi stencil void stencil(int a[][N], int b[][N]) { int i, j, k; for (k = 0; k < N; k++) { for (i = 1; i <= N-2; i++) for (j = 1; j <= N-2; j++) b[i][j] = 0.25 * (a[i][j] + a[i-1][j] + a[i+1][j] + a[i][j-1] + a[i][j+1]); for

Thank You. I have seen the opcode is 8 bits and all the combinations are already used in llvm x86. Now what to do? On Sat, Jul 8, 2017 at 10:57 AM, Craig Topper <craig.topper at gmail.com> wrote: > Yes its an opcode conflict. You'll have to look through Intel documents > and find an unused opcode. I've only added instructions based on a real > spec so I don't know