search for: deterministism

Hello, For debugging purposes, I've added a unique id member to the Value class: global_next_vuid = 0; Value::Value(..){ vuid = ++global_next_vuid; } My hope is that by looking at the vuid of a Value, I can see its vuid, set a conditional breakpoint and re-run the compiler to see who (what pass) constructed that value. Maybe I am not doing it the right way, but the above 'vuid'

I haven't tested it, but it looks to me like llvm-profdata merge (well, InstrProfWriter specifically) would not have deterministic output. Certainly the textual output iterates over FunctionData which is a StringMap of SmallDenseMaps, neither of which has deterministic iteration. The binary writing looks like it'd have similar issues - looping through these unordered maps & writing

The generated code is deterministic, but the global order the instructions were generated seems it is not (although the result is guaranteed to be the same). Now I think the order functions are processed might not be guaranteed. I've attached a test case, and here is what I get: ............................... (303)$ ~/bin/llvm/bin/gcc -O3 -emit-llvm try_calls_basic.2.c -c -o

Hello LLVM-Dev, Today if a user checks out LLVM, configures with no options specified, and builds the result is non-deterministic. Meaning if you clean and build again the binaries are not identical. This impacts all target platforms equally and is caused by the default value of LLVM_ENABLE_TIMESTAMPS being On. I believe this is incorrect behavior, and I’m curious what the wider community

On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 8:33 PM, dan mihai <dnmh68 at hotmail.com> wrote: > Hello, > Yo! > For debugging purposes, I've added a unique id member to the Value class: > > global_next_vuid = 0; > Value::Value(..){ >   vuid = ++global_next_vuid; > } > > My hope is that by looking at the vuid of a Value, I can see its vuid, > set a conditional breakpoint and

Guys, It seems as though the llvm system doesn't deterministically iterate over Module::iterator, or global_iterator. To make myself clearer, the iterators iterate over all the global_variables but on different llvm passes (different calls to opt -load), the iterators iterate over them in different orders. I was thinking that it has something non deterministic to do with byte code reading or

Forgot cc, the entire group. How can deterministically iterate over the uses of a variable. i.e. the uses should be any particular order that doesn't change from execution to execution of the opt tool. To make myself more clearer, here is a snippet of code that has Values reordered each time I analyze a particular piece of code(which doesn't change) with the LLVM opt tool and my LLVM

It is with great sadness that I must tell everyone CMake’s Ninja generator is non-deterministic (https://public.kitware.com/Bug/view.php?id=15968 <https://public.kitware.com/Bug/view.php?id=15968>). I’m not sure if this impacts all versions of CMake, but it certainly impacts all the recent releases. You might ask why this matters? Sadly the non-determinism *does* impact determinism in the

On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 7:03 PM Xinliang David Li <davidxl at google.com> wrote: > On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 6:27 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > >> I haven't tested it, but it looks to me like llvm-profdata merge (well, >> InstrProfWriter specifically) would not have deterministic output. >> >> Certainly the textual output iterates

Hello, does LLVM already have a Random Number Generator built into it's library somewhere? I know code generation is suppose to be deterministic, but when producing a random number can be deterministic if the random number generator is also deterministic. - Thanks - Jeff Kunkel

In the past, I had added the ability in LLVM to uncover 2 types of non-deterministic behaviors: iteration of unordered containers with pointer-like keys and sorting of elements with the same keys. Now, I wanted to add checkers for these (and other types of non-deterministic behaviors) so that they could be applied more widely. I also realize that not all of these may be doable at

I’m not sure if it’s truly deterministic. It always gives the same results (so far) on my machine but I’m not sure that’s enough. My guess is it’s probably going to be deterministic on one machine but might well not be deterministic across environments. Like it might give varying results if cross compiled on different hosts, macOS vs intel Linux vs arm vs s390. (Obviously AVR is always a cross

Hi, Recently I want to fuzz samba systematically (instead of functional fuzzing like OSS-Fuzz/samba). However, the fuzzer acts like smbclient and needs to establish a connection with the samba server via NTLM authentication. The NTLMSSP_Challenge sent by the server is not deterministic, which can render the fuzzing based on previously captured traffic futile. Does samba provide a fuzzing mode

Dear useRs, A few days ago, the initial version 0.1.0 of a new package 'random' was uploaded to CRAN. The random packages provides convenient access to the non-deterministic random numbers provided by the random.org site created by Mads Haahr (http://www.random.org). While certain hardware and software solutions that provide access to non-deterministic random-numbers exist, few if any

Dear useRs, A few days ago, the initial version 0.1.0 of a new package 'random' was uploaded to CRAN. The random packages provides convenient access to the non-deterministic random numbers provided by the random.org site created by Mads Haahr (http://www.random.org). While certain hardware and software solutions that provide access to non-deterministic random-numbers exist, few if any

Oh, I should point out that using randomness is the unfortunate part, but you can get deterministic builds by passing -frandom-seed=0 to clang and/or gcc. -Chris On Nov 12, 2010, at 9:19 AM, Chris Lattner wrote: > Yes, this is controlled by the -frandom-seed flag. Sadly, it is expected behavior. > > -Chris > > On Nov 12, 2010, at 7:10 AM, Sebastian Redl <sebastian.redl at

On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 7:26 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 7:03 PM Xinliang David Li <davidxl at google.com> > wrote: > >> On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 6:27 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> I haven't tested it, but it looks to me like llvm-profdata merge (well,

Yes, this is controlled by the -frandom-seed flag. Sadly, it is expected behavior. -Chris On Nov 12, 2010, at 7:10 AM, Sebastian Redl <sebastian.redl at getdesigned.at> wrote: > On 12.11.2010 15:26, Erik Cederstrand wrote: >> I have noticed that two consecutive builds of clang, clang++ and tblgen don't produce identical binaries (as in md5 sums) on identical source code

Do any of the current build bots for llvm.org perform 3-stage bootstraps with file comparison of the stage2 and stage3 object files and generated headers? On x86_64-apple-darwin16 using the fink projects llvm packaging methodology (crafted by David Fang), I am seeing non-deterministic file comparison failures in current trunk that goes back as far as r296837.

Dear guRus, I am starting to work with the ggplot2 package and have two very dumb questions: 1) deterministic position_jitter - the jittering is stochastic; is there any way to get a deterministic jittering? For instance: example.data <- data.frame(group=c("foo","bar","foo","bar","foo","bar"),x=c(1,1,2,2,3,3),y=c(1,1,0,2,1,1))