similar to: Run llvm pass from standalone project

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,

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

Hi all, I'm trying to write an LLVM pass which would determine whether there is any pointer which ever points to a function. I couldn't figure out if there is any existing pass which does something of the kind (maybe some analysis pass which I'm not aware of?). Of course, I could just iterate over all values, and check whether they point to functions (as in a similar recent post).

Hello! After performing an analysis with betadisper, package vegan I would like to plot the results - so far, so good. But I would also like to "tune" a little bit the plotting characters, as '+' and 'x' are a little to similar... My (boiled down) code: [See session info at the bottom of the mail, vegan is vegan_2.0-3] mod <- betadisper(mydata, mygroups,

On 3/30/11 10:12 AM, guyadini wrote: > Hi all, > > I'm trying to write an LLVM pass which would determine whether there is any > pointer which ever points to a function. I couldn't figure out if there is > any existing pass which does something of the kind (maybe some analysis pass > which I'm not aware of?). DSA (part of the poolalloc project:

Hi, I'm trying to get AA results for two pointers, but it seems that AA cannot look though a memcpy. For example: define dso_local spir_func void @fun() { entry: ; Store an address of `var' %var = alloca i32, align 4 store i32 42, i32* %var, align 4 %var.addr = alloca i32*, align 8 store i32* %var, i32** %var.addr, align 8 ; Memcpy

Hi! On 7/10/2020 07:17, Shuai Wang wrote: > Hello! > > Thank you very much! Yes, that makes a lot of sense to me. However, just > want to point out two things that are still unclear: > > 1. The output contains a alias set of only one element, for instance: > "must alias, Mod       Pointers: (i32* %y, LocationSize::precise(4))" > > This one really confused

On 12/5/18 9:51 AM, Andrew Savonichev via llvm-dev wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I'm trying to get AA results for two pointers, but it seems that AA >> cannot look though a memcpy. For example: >> >> define dso_local spir_func void @fun() { >> entry: >> ; Store an address of `var' >> %var = alloca i32, align 4 >>

On 12/5/18 2:14 PM, Andrew Savonichev wrote: >> On 12/5/18 9:51 AM, Andrew Savonichev via llvm-dev wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> I'm trying to get AA results for two pointers, but it seems that AA >>>> cannot look though a memcpy. For example: >>>> >>>> define dso_local spir_func void @fun() { >>>>

Hey Matt, That's awesome. Thank you very much for all the information and clarification! Just a few follow up questions. Could you kindly shed some lights on it? Thank you! 1. I tried to tweak the code in the following way: - Clang [-> LLVM-IR]: https://llvm.godbolt.org/z/n9rGrs - [LLVM-IR ->] opt: https://llvm.godbolt.org/z/Uc6h5Y And i note that the outputs are: Alias sets for

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

Hi again! Replying in chronological order: > On Thu, Jul 9, 2020 at 6:51 PM Shuai Wang <wangshuai901 at gmail.com > <mailto:wangshuai901 at gmail.com>> wrote: > > Hey Matt, > > That's awesome. Thank you very much for all the information and > clarification! Just a few follow up questions. Could you kindly shed > some lights on it? Thank

Hi Johannes, I followed your advice and got the same result: NoAlias and No dependence. Would you say AA is faulty for saying NoAlias or DA is faulty for saying no dependence? Or both? (revised example below) Thanks! define float @f() { entry: %g = alloca float, align 4 %h = alloca float, align 4 br label %for.body for.cond.cleanup: ; preds = %for.body

It seems the same bug is there if we do pointer swapping with selects. Do you agree? (see example below) define void @f() { entry: %a1 = alloca float, align 4 %a2 = alloca float, align 4 br label %loop end: ret void loop: %phi = phi i32 [ 0, %entry ], [ 1, %loop ] %select_cond = icmp eq i32 %phi, 0 %ptr1 = select i1 %select_cond, float* %a1, float* %a2 %ptr2 = select i1

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

Hello llvm-dev, I would appreciate your feedback on the following problem. We're trying to determine whether this is a bug in LLVM or not. In the IR snippet below, we have two pointers (p and q) which initially point to two completely non-overlapping locations. Then, on every iteration of a loop, we swap the pointers and load from the first, followed by a store to the second. 1) AA says the

Alias analysis is figuring out the relationship between two pointer expressions, at some location in the program. At a given point in the program, do two expressions always refer to the same location? At a given point in the program, do two expressions never refer to the same location? AliasAnalysis::alias() doesn't explicitly take a "point" in the program because we don't

Hello, I am performing alias analysis toward the following simple code: struct MyStruct { int * f1; int * f2; }; void NOALIAS(void* p, void* q){ } int main() { struct MyStruct s[2]; int a,b; s[0].f1 = &a; s[1].f1 = &b; NOALIAS(s[a].f1, s[b].f2); return 0; } When I use the following command to generate .bc code and conduct alias analysis: clang -c -emit-llvm t.c -O2 opt -basicaa

Oh. So it wasn't just the memory location size that was incorrect on those aliasing checks. I took a look at the tests and it appears that the alias call also catches some cases of restrict/noalias attributes, along with the tbaa info. My first idea of constructing an alias call with no Ptr's but valid tbaa info won't catch that at least. I will create a bug report and try and see if

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