llvm-project/llvm/lib/Passes/CMakeLists.txt

add_llvm_component_library(LLVMPasses
  PassBuilder.cpp
  PassPlugin.cpp
  StandardInstrumentations.cpp

  ADDITIONAL_HEADER_DIRS
  ${LLVM_MAIN_INCLUDE_DIR}/llvm
  ${LLVM_MAIN_INCLUDE_DIR}/llvm/Passes

  DEPENDS
  intrinsics_gen
  )
[cmake] Explicitly mark libraries defined in lib/ as "Component Libraries" Summary: Most libraries are defined in the lib/ directory but there are also a few libraries defined in tools/ e.g. libLLVM, libLTO. I'm defining "Component Libraries" as libraries defined in lib/ that may be included in libLLVM.so. Explicitly marking the libraries in lib/ as component libraries allows us to remove some fragile checks that attempt to differentiate between lib/ libraries and tools/ libraires: 1. In tools/llvm-shlib, because llvm_map_components_to_libnames(LIB_NAMES "all") returned a list of all libraries defined in the whole project, there was custom code needed to filter out libraries defined in tools/, none of which should be included in libLLVM.so. This code assumed that any library defined as static was from lib/ and everything else should be excluded. With this change, llvm_map_components_to_libnames(LIB_NAMES, "all") only returns libraries that have been added to the LLVM_COMPONENT_LIBS global cmake property, so this custom filtering logic can be removed. Doing this also fixes the build with BUILD_SHARED_LIBS=ON and LLVM_BUILD_LLVM_DYLIB=ON. 2. There was some code in llvm_add_library that assumed that libraries defined in lib/ would not have LLVM_LINK_COMPONENTS or ARG_LINK_COMPONENTS set. This is only true because libraries defined lib lib/ use LLVMBuild.txt and don't set these values. This code has been fixed now to check if the library has been explicitly marked as a component library, which should now make it easier to remove LLVMBuild at some point in the future. I have tested this patch on Windows, MacOS and Linux with release builds and the following combinations of CMake options: - "" (No options) - -DLLVM_BUILD_LLVM_DYLIB=ON - -DLLVM_LINK_LLVM_DYLIB=ON - -DBUILD_SHARED_LIBS=ON - -DBUILD_SHARED_LIBS=ON -DLLVM_BUILD_LLVM_DYLIB=ON - -DBUILD_SHARED_LIBS=ON -DLLVM_LINK_LLVM_DYLIB=ON Reviewers: beanz, smeenai, compnerd, phosek Reviewed By: beanz Subscribers: wuzish, jholewinski, arsenm, dschuff, jyknight, dylanmckay, sdardis, nemanjai, jvesely, nhaehnle, mgorny, mehdi_amini, sbc100, jgravelle-google, hiraditya, aheejin, fedor.sergeev, asb, rbar, johnrusso, simoncook, apazos, sabuasal, niosHD, jrtc27, MaskRay, zzheng, edward-jones, atanasyan, steven_wu, rogfer01, MartinMosbeck, brucehoult, the_o, dexonsmith, PkmX, jocewei, jsji, dang, Jim, lenary, s.egerton, pzheng, sameer.abuasal, llvm-commits Tags: #llvm Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D70179 2019-11-14 13:39:58 +08:00			`add_llvm_component_library(LLVMPasses`
[PM] Create a separate library for high-level pass management code. This will provide the analogous replacements for the PassManagerBuilder and other code long term. This code is extracted from the opt tool currently, and I plan to extend it as I build up support for using the new pass manager in Clang and other places. Mailing this out for review in part to let folks comment on the terrible names here. A brief word about why I chose the names I did. The library is called "Passes" to try and make it clear that it is a high-level utility and where all of the passes come together and are registered in a common library. I didn't want it to be limited to a registry though, the registry is just one component. The class is a "PassBuilder" but this name I'm less happy with. It doesn't build passes in any traditional sense and isn't a Builder-style API at all. The class is a PassRegisterer or PassAdder, but neither of those really make a lot of sense. This class is responsible for constructing passes for registry in an analysis manager or for population of a pass pipeline. If anyone has a better name, I would love to hear it. The other candidate I looked at was PassRegistrar, but that doesn't really fit either. There is no register of all the passes in use, and so I think continuing the "registry" analog outside of the registry of pass names and types is a mistake. The objects themselves are just objects with the new pass manager. Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D8054 llvm-svn: 231556 2015-03-07 17:02:36 +08:00			`PassBuilder.cpp`
Re-land r329273: [Plugins] Add a slim plugin API to work together with the new PM Fix unittest: Do not link LLVM into the test plugin. Additionally, remove an unrelated change that slipped in in r329273. llvm-svn: 329293 2018-04-05 23:04:13 +08:00			`PassPlugin.cpp`
[New PM][PassInstrumentation] IR printing support for New Pass Manager Implementing -print-before-all/-print-after-all/-filter-print-func support through PassInstrumentation callbacks. - PrintIR routines implement printing callbacks. - StandardInstrumentations class provides a central place to manage all the "standard" in-tree pass instrumentations. Currently it registers PrintIR callbacks. Reviewers: chandlerc, paquette, philip.pfaffe Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D50923 llvm-svn: 342896 2018-09-25 00:08:15 +08:00			`StandardInstrumentations.cpp`
[PM] Create a separate library for high-level pass management code. This will provide the analogous replacements for the PassManagerBuilder and other code long term. This code is extracted from the opt tool currently, and I plan to extend it as I build up support for using the new pass manager in Clang and other places. Mailing this out for review in part to let folks comment on the terrible names here. A brief word about why I chose the names I did. The library is called "Passes" to try and make it clear that it is a high-level utility and where all of the passes come together and are registered in a common library. I didn't want it to be limited to a registry though, the registry is just one component. The class is a "PassBuilder" but this name I'm less happy with. It doesn't build passes in any traditional sense and isn't a Builder-style API at all. The class is a PassRegisterer or PassAdder, but neither of those really make a lot of sense. This class is responsible for constructing passes for registry in an analysis manager or for population of a pass pipeline. If anyone has a better name, I would love to hear it. The other candidate I looked at was PassRegistrar, but that doesn't really fit either. There is no register of all the passes in use, and so I think continuing the "registry" analog outside of the registry of pass names and types is a mistake. The objects themselves are just objects with the new pass manager. Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D8054 llvm-svn: 231556 2015-03-07 17:02:36 +08:00
			`ADDITIONAL_HEADER_DIRS`
[cmake] LLVMPasses - add include/llvm header path Pick up all the Pass headers in the root for MSVC projects 2020-04-18 19:09:46 +08:00			`${LLVM_MAIN_INCLUDE_DIR}/llvm`
[PM] Create a separate library for high-level pass management code. This will provide the analogous replacements for the PassManagerBuilder and other code long term. This code is extracted from the opt tool currently, and I plan to extend it as I build up support for using the new pass manager in Clang and other places. Mailing this out for review in part to let folks comment on the terrible names here. A brief word about why I chose the names I did. The library is called "Passes" to try and make it clear that it is a high-level utility and where all of the passes come together and are registered in a common library. I didn't want it to be limited to a registry though, the registry is just one component. The class is a "PassBuilder" but this name I'm less happy with. It doesn't build passes in any traditional sense and isn't a Builder-style API at all. The class is a PassRegisterer or PassAdder, but neither of those really make a lot of sense. This class is responsible for constructing passes for registry in an analysis manager or for population of a pass pipeline. If anyone has a better name, I would love to hear it. The other candidate I looked at was PassRegistrar, but that doesn't really fit either. There is no register of all the passes in use, and so I think continuing the "registry" analog outside of the registry of pass names and types is a mistake. The objects themselves are just objects with the new pass manager. Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D8054 llvm-svn: 231556 2015-03-07 17:02:36 +08:00			`${LLVM_MAIN_INCLUDE_DIR}/llvm/Passes`
[PM] Fixup for r231556 where I missed a dependency on intrinsics generation. llvm-svn: 231558 2015-03-07 17:08:20 +08:00
[CMake] NFC. Updating CMake dependency specifications This patch updates a bunch of places where add_dependencies was being explicitly called to add dependencies on intrinsics_gen to instead use the DEPENDS named parameter. This cleanup is needed for a patch I'm working on to add a dependency debugging mode to the build system. llvm-svn: 287206 2016-11-17 12:36:50 +08:00			`DEPENDS`
			`intrinsics_gen`
			`)`