search for: instrumenter

...ation is referred to as ME based instrumentation in this >> document. Our experimental results show that ME instrumentation can speed >> up the instrumentation by 80% on average for typical C++ programs. Here are >> the two main design objectives: >> * Co-existing with FE Instrumenter: We do not propose to replace the >> FE based instrumentation because FE based instrumentation has its >> advantages and applications. User can choose which phase to do >> instrumentation via command line options. >> * PGO Runtime Support Sharing: The ME instrumenter will...

...ntation in this document. Our > >>> experimental results show that ME instrumentation can speed up the > >>> instrumentation by 80% on average for typical C++ programs. Here are > the two > >>> main design objectives: > >>> * Co-existing with FE Instrumenter: We do not propose to replace the > >>> FE based instrumentation because FE based instrumentation has its > advantages > >>> and applications. User can choose which phase to do instrumentation via > >>> command line options. > >>> * PGO Runtime...

...entation runtime. The new instrumentation is referred to as ME based instrumentation in this document. Our experimental results show that ME instrumentation can speed up the instrumentation by 80% on average for typical C++ programs. Here are the two main design objectives: * Co-existing with FE Instrumenter: We do not propose to replace the FE based instrumentation because FE based instrumentation has its advantages and applications. User can choose which phase to do instrumentation via command line options. * PGO Runtime Support Sharing: The ME instrumenter will completely re-use the existing PGO’...

Hi all, I want to test X-ray performance and compare it with other research tools, so I use Clang 7.0.0 to compile and instrument GNU binutils-2.3.1 with the following commands: cd binutils-2.31/ mkdir build cd build/ CC=$local/clang CXX=$local/clang++ CFLAGS=-fxray-instrument CXXFLAGS=-fxray-instrument ../configure --prefix=/home/zhangysh1995/local make Then I extract instrumentation map

Hello, I have some questions about removing the instrumented instructions at runtime. Assume I instrument some instructions by using some transformation passes. At runtime, I just need those instrumented instructions at the beginning, and I would like to remove instrumented instructions at runtime to reduce overhead. Does anyone know how to do this by using LLVM? Thanks, Bo -- View

Hello all, I have developed a instrumented pass which insert some variables between the original variables, as well as insert some code into the original source code. just like: ============= original source code ============= int a[10]; void fun1 () { // some source code here } ========================================= ============= instrumented source code ============= int

Hey LLVM-dev, We propose to build the CSI framework to provide a comprehensive suite of compiler-inserted instrumentation hooks that dynamic-analysis tools can use to observe and investigate program runtime behavior. Traditionally, tools based on compiler instrumentation would each separately modify the compiler to insert their own instrumentation. In contrast, CSI inserts a standard

> Assume I instrument some instructions by using some transformation passes. > At runtime, I just need those instrumented instructions at the beginning, > and I would like to remove instrumented instructions at runtime to reduce > overhead. At the beginning of what? You mean at the time of program starup? Then after detecting/collecting whatever you want, you would like to remove

Hey Mehdi, Thank you for your comments. I've CC'd the CSI mailing list with your comments and put my responses inline. Please let me know any other questions you have. Cheers, TB On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 3:48 PM, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> wrote: > > On Jun 16, 2016, at 9:01 AM, TB Schardl via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >

Dear List, I have some questions about some passes for LLVM that I'm thinking about but first I need to give a little background ... One of the things I do in my "day job" (large IT system performance analysis) is to figure out where to place diagnostic instrumentation within an application. The instrumentation I'm talking about here is the kind that is inserted into

Thanks Vedant, and my apologies for the delay getting back to you - work got "busy". I wasn't aware of the '-fprofile-generate' option, so thanks for point this out. I have tried running it and I can see the instrumentation hooks that it generates - I assume that there is a library I have to implement to support this, can you let me know where the source for this library

On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 3:27 PM, Mehdi Amini via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Hi TB, > > Thanks for you answer. > > On Jun 16, 2016, at 2:50 PM, TB Schardl <neboat at mit.edu> wrote: > > Hey Mehdi, > > Thank you for your comments. I've CC'd the CSI mailing list with your > comments and put my responses inline. Please let me

Hi, I consider reducing the usage of blacklist in sanitizer instrumentation passes and doing the necessary work in frontend (Clang) instead. Some of it is already implemented: e.g. Clang will attach an attribute "sanitize_address" to function definition only if this function is not blacklisted. In this case we won't instrument the memory accesses in this function in ASan

> On Dec 13, 2016, at 3:46 AM, Martin J. O'Riordan via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > When either ‘-pg’ or ‘-finstrument-functions’ is used, the compiler inserts the appropriate profiling hooks. This happens prior to inlining, so the hooks remain in place. Have you tried compiling with -fprofile-generate? It enables IR-based profiling instrumentation, which

Reid, Adding this kind of instrumentation pass would be very valuable in LLVM. We don't have any such thing at present, and there could be multiple uses for it. Joel Stanley did an MS thesis last year that could complement this kind of pass nicely. Joel's thesis was on dynamic performance instrumentation guided by explicit queries within the application (I will forward you a

Hello, I have a question regarding PGO instrumented BBs (I use IR-level instrumentation). It seems that instrumented BBs do not match between the two compilations for profile-gen and profile-use for some cases. Here is an example from SPECcpu 2006 lbm (a simple case consisting of just two modules). In the first compilation, we have 5 instrumentation points for the main function as follows: $

I am very glad this project reached the state where we can start the public code review. Please shoot the patches for review when ready. --kcc On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 12:14 PM, TB Schardl via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > CC'ing the mailing list for the CSI project. > > On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 12:01 PM, TB Schardl <neboat at mit.edu> wrote: >

On 2/24/13 10:07 AM, Lu Mitnick wrote: > Hello all, > > I have developed a instrumented pass which insert some variables > between the original variables, > as well as insert some code into the original source code. just like: > > ============= original source code ============= > > int a[10]; > > void fun1 () { > // some source code here > } > >

Hi there, I hope to build a model Y ~ X1 + X2 + X3 + X4 with X1 has two instrumental variable A and B, and X2 has one instrumental variable A. I have searched the R site and mailling list, and known that the tsls() from sem package and ivreg() from AER package can deal with instrumental variable regression, however, I don't know how to formula the model. Any suggestion will be really

We collected more data to address some of the questions from the reviewers. Note this time we use clang itself as the benchmark. We choose clang because we think it's a typical C++ program and the reviewers here have good knowledge of the code base. What we measure is running time for clang to compile a large preprocessed source file (4.98M lines of .ii file), using different compilation