[llvm-dev] Porting Pass to New PassManager

[Leonard Chan via llvm-dev]

Actually I figured out how to run both a module and function pass. So
now for the test `test/Instrumentation/AddressSanitizer/basic.ll`,
both `-asan -asan-module` and
`-passes='function(asan),module(asan-module)` produce the same
instrumented code.
On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 12:11 PM Leonard Chan <leonardchan at google.com> wrote:
>
> Is there a reason for why `-asan` and `-asan-module` can be mixed but
> Function passes and Module passes with the new PM can't be mixed?
>
> - Leo
> On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 3:21 AM Fedor Sergeev <fedor.sergeev at azul.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 09/27/2018 12:25 PM, Philip Pfaffe wrote:
> >>
> >> `opt < %s -passed='asan' -asan-module -S`
> >
> > asan-module is another ModulePass, not a commandline option.  You can't mix that like this.
> >
> > I'm inclined to consider this as a deficiency of our command line interface.
> > We really should be giving some noise about newpm's  -passes overriding any legacy-pass options.
> >
> > Especially since these legacy-pass options sometimes are hard to distinguish from non-pass options.
> >
> > regards,
> >   Fedor.
> >
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Philip
> >
> >>
> >> doesn't  produce the same IR as
> >>
> >> `opt < %s -asan -asan-module -S`
> >>
> >> More specifically, the only thing missing seems to be the
> >> `asan.module_ctor` that should get added to the global ctors list.
> >> What I'm not sure of is if I'm missing something when I made the new
> >> pass or it's something in the pipeline regarding which passes run
> >> first between both PMs. I could just make an AddressSanitizerModule
> >> pass for the new PM, but feel like this should still work even if
> >> AddressSanitizer is added in the new PM and AddressSanitizerModule is
> >> added in legacy.
> >>
> >> - Leo
> >
> >