[llvm-dev] opt with Polly doesn't find the passes

[Tobias Grosser via llvm-dev]

On 02/03/2016 05:49 PM, Frank Winter wrote:
>
>
> On 02/03/2016 11:28 AM, Tobias Grosser wrote:
>> On 02/03/2016 05:16 PM, Frank Winter wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 02/03/2016 11:06 AM, Tobias Grosser wrote:
>>>> On 02/03/2016 04:46 PM, Frank Winter via llvm-dev wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 02/03/2016 10:41 AM, Tobias Grosser wrote:
>>>>>> On 02/03/2016 04:37 PM, Frank Winter wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi Tobias,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I tried to invoke other passes and none of them are available, e.g.:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ~/toolchain/install/llvm-3.8/bin/opt -load
>>>>>>> ~/toolchain/install/llvm-3.8/lib/libPolly.so -polly-cleanup
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> opt: Unknown command line argument '-polly-cleanup'.  Try:
>>>>>>> '/home/fwinter/toolchain/install/llvm-3.8/bin/opt -help'
>>>>>>> opt: Did you mean '-polly-tiling'?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I assume -polly-cleanup still shows in -help-hidden?
>>>>>
>>>>> No, it doesn't show. It never did. It looks to me that only the clang
>>>>> options show in -help-hidden but not the passes. Can that be right?
>>>>
>>>> No, it can not. Interesting observation.
>>>>
>>>>>>> I am just shooting around hoping to get a clue what's going on...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On thing.. I recall reading the polly documentation that there was
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> option to link opt statically with the polly library which I did not
>>>>>>> select. But that's likely not the problem since a lot of polly
>>>>>>> options
>>>>>>> are apparently there.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Out of ideas for now.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is surprising, indeed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The option is: LINK_POLLY_INTO_TOOLS:BOOL=ON. It might be worth
>>>>>> giving
>>>>>> it a try.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What ubuntu version are you on precisely? I can try the 3.8 branch
>>>>>> tonight myself.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ubuntu 14.04 LTS x86-64.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks. If you have cycles to try a LINK_POLLY_INTO_TOOLS:BOOL=ON build
>>>> on your side, this would be great.
>>>>
>>>> Another data-point that might be of help is to just run the script at
>>>> http://polly.llvm.org/get_started.html to install everything. This
>>>> installs trunk the way it is tested and run by us day-to-day (myself
>>>> using Ubuntu x86-64). This should be the most basic test that should
>>>> work.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The polly.sh script builds LLVM with static linkage and thus would
>>> create a libPolly.a, right? This cannot be loaded into 'opt' nor would
>>> 'opt' be linked with polly. I'd need a polly-enabled opt.
>>
>> By default it builds as a loadable module (not using
>> LINK_POLLY_INTO_TOOLS), if this is what you mean by 'static linkage'.
>>
>
> By static linkage I mean building LLVM with -DBUILD_SHARED_LIBS="OFF"
> (or omitting the option entirely, as I think that is the default). I
> built the release_38 branch (llvm,clang and polly) with
>
> cmake -G "Unix Makefiles" \
> -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=$CMAKE_BUILD_TYPE \
> -DCMAKE_INSTALL_PREFIX=$CMAKE_INSTALL_PREFIX \
> -DLLVM_TARGETS_TO_BUILD=$LLVM_TARGETS_TO_BUILD \
> $SRC
>
> and that created the 'libPolly.a' and polly was not linked into 'opt'.
>
> What I am building at the minute is:
>
> svn co http://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk llvm-trunk
> svn co http://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/polly/trunk llvm-trunk/tools/polly
> svn co http://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/cfe/trunk llvm-trunk/tools/clang
>
> SRC=$HOME/svn/llvm-trunk
>
> CMAKE_BUILD_TYPE="Debug"
> CMAKE_INSTALL_PREFIX="$HOME/toolchain/install/llvm-trunk"
> LLVM_TARGETS_TO_BUILD="X86"
>
> cmake -G "Unix Makefiles" \
> -DBUILD_SHARED_LIBS="ON" \
> -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=$CMAKE_BUILD_TYPE \
> -DCMAKE_INSTALL_PREFIX=$CMAKE_INSTALL_PREFIX \
> -DLLVM_TARGETS_TO_BUILD=$LLVM_TARGETS_TO_BUILD \
> $SRC
>
> make -j $number_of_CPUs
>
> Thus, the only difference is that it uses trunk instead of release_38.
>
> If the created 'opt' still doesn't find the polly passes I will go with
> your suggestion and add the option LINK_POLLY_INTO_TOOLS=ON.
>
> However, I have a strong feeling there's something haywire in the
> release_38 branch regards this.

Yes, something fishy is going on. Let's see what your analysis gives us.

Best,
Tobias