Petr Hosek via llvm-dev
2021-Aug-24 05:52 UTC
[llvm-dev] Support for older format versions in RawInstrProfReader
Currently, while IndexedInstrProfReader provides backwards compatibility for indexed profile format, RawInstrProfReader only supports the current version of raw profile format. Has support for older raw profile format versions in RawInstrProfReader ever been considered? The reason why I'm asking is that we collect code coverage from both C++ and Rust, but since Clang and Rust toolchains use different version on LLVM, we need to match each profile with a corresponding llvm-profdata binary which has been increasing the complexity of our infrastructure quite a bit. Using the same llvm-profdata tool would simplify things a lot but would require backwards compatibility support in RawInstrProfReader. Would that be desirable? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20210823/48628625/attachment.html> -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 3996 bytes Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20210823/48628625/attachment.bin>
Xinliang David Li via llvm-dev
2021-Aug-24 15:24 UTC
[llvm-dev] Support for older format versions in RawInstrProfReader
On Mon, Aug 23, 2021 at 10:52 PM Petr Hosek <phosek at google.com> wrote:> Currently, while IndexedInstrProfReader provides backwards compatibility > for indexed profile format, RawInstrProfReader only supports the current > version of raw profile format. Has support for older raw profile format > versions in RawInstrProfReader ever been considered? > > The reason why I'm asking is that we collect code coverage from both C++ > and Rust, but since Clang and Rust toolchains use different version on > LLVM, we need to match each profile with a corresponding llvm-profdata > binary which has been increasing the complexity of our infrastructure quite > a bit. >Is it possible to save one reader binary per raw format version? What is the challenge of matching up versions with the reader binary?> > Using the same llvm-profdata tool would simplify things a lot but would > require backwards compatibility support in RawInstrProfReader. Would that > be desirable? >Current scheme for raw format allows fast pace change and innovation. It also allows quite drastical format change. Losing that capability would be undesirable. Before pursuing this path, the benefit needs to outweigh the cost. David -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20210824/f18ad742/attachment.html>