[llvm-dev] Porting Pass to New PassManager

[Philip Pfaffe via llvm-dev]

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
> PassBuilder::register*/parse*/is* methods do include PassRegistry.def in
> their bodies.
>
> I was under impression that callbacks are primarily for plugins usage.
>
> regards,
>   Fedor.
>
> On 09/25/2018 12:43 PM, Philip Pfaffe wrote:
>
> Hi Leonard, Fedor,
>
> while it's true that RegisterPass is not applicable for new-pm passes,
> PassRegistry.def is not the whole story. Passes in PassRegistry are
> available for the opt tool. The sanitizers are passes that usually get
> added to the pipeline by the frontend. There, you need to use PassBuilder's
> callbacks mechanism to hook the sanitizer into the optimizer.
>
> Assuming you're willing to contribute your changes, please share your
> progress! Thank you for making a move on this!
>
> Cheers,
> Philip
>
> On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 8:27 AM Fedor Sergeev via llvm-dev <
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
>> Leonard,
>>
>> nope, the PassRegistry stuff is all about legacy pass manager.
>> legacy namespace has not been extensively used to mark all the
>> legacy-related stuff
>> (say, even Pass class which is a base for legacy passes is not under
>> legacy namespace).
>>
>> Registration for new-pass-manager passes happens in
>> lib/Passes/PassRegistry.def.
>>
>> Usually, when porting from legacy to new the main difference is analysis
>> handling,
>> so people factor out the worker code into a method that takes analyses
>> and call
>> this function both in legacy and new-pm passes.
>> In many cases it takes just a handful lines of code.
>>
>> Feel free to ask questions, if any.
>>
>> regards,
>>    Fedor.
>>
>> On 09/25/2018 02:54 AM, Leonard Chan via llvm-dev wrote:
>>  > Hi all,
>>  >
>>  > I'm attempting to move the AddressSanitizer pass from the legacy
>>  > PassManager to the new one because the new one has various benefits
>>  > over legacy and wanted to clarify on something. Does creating the
>>  > static RegisterPass struct register the pass with the new PassManager?
>>  >
>>  > It seems that RegisterPass does the same things that the
>>  > INITIALIZE_PASS_* macros do but it registers the pass with
>>  > PassRegistry::getPassRegistry(). What I'm not sure of is if this uses
>>  > the new PassManager infrastructure. Exploring the code doesn't seem to
>>  > show that this PassRegistry touches anything in the legacy namespace,
>>  > but I wanted double confirmation on this.
>>  >
>>  > Thanks,
>>  > Leonard
>>  > _______________________________________________
>>  > LLVM Developers mailing list
>>  > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
>>  > http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20180925/61c6f4cd/attachment.html>