search for: instrumentors

David Greene wrote: > On Friday 10 July 2009 18:06, Slobodan Pejic wrote: >> Hello, >> >> I am planning on contributing path profiling to LLVM by the end of >> August. I have written a document of what the interface to the path >> profiles would look like at that time. If someone has any amendments, I >> can incorporate them. >> >>

On Friday 10 July 2009 18:06, Slobodan Pejic wrote: > Hello, > > I am planning on contributing path profiling to LLVM by the end of > August. I have written a document of what the interface to the path > profiles would look like at that time. If someone has any amendments, I > can incorporate them. > > http://www.cs.ualberta.ca/~pejic/PathProfiling.html Slobodan, This

Hello, I am planning on contributing path profiling to LLVM by the end of August. I have written a document of what the interface to the path profiles would look like at that time. If someone has any amendments, I can incorporate them. http://www.cs.ualberta.ca/~pejic/PathProfiling.html Slobodan Pejic

...liang David Li <davidxl at google.com> wrote: > There is some misunderstanding about the intention of this flag. The > purpose of the flag is not to turn on profile instrumentation (which > already has -fprofile-instr-generate or -fprofile-generate for it), but to > select which instrumentors to use for PGO (IR or FE). I prefer fewer flags > too, but sharing flags for completely different purpose does not seem like > the right thing to do. > > Ah, right. It does seem like I'm misunderstanding the intention for that flag. FWIW, I think consolidating the flags can happen...

There is some misunderstanding about the intention of this flag. The purpose of the flag is not to turn on profile instrumentation (which already has -fprofile-instr-generate or -fprofile-generate for it), but to select which instrumentors to use for PGO (IR or FE). I prefer fewer flags too, but sharing flags for completely different purpose does not seem like the right thing to do. David On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 9:39 PM, Dean Michael Berris <dberris at google.com> wrote: > On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 1:44 AM Eric Christophe...

On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 1:44 AM Eric Christopher via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > On Thu, Jun 2, 2016, 6:41 PM Xinliang David Li via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> >> Sounds fine to me, though I am not a fan of using unstable in the option. >> I think a more meaningful way (that capture the essence of the

...l at google.com> > wrote: > >> There is some misunderstanding about the intention of this flag. The >> purpose of the flag is not to turn on profile instrumentation (which >> already has -fprofile-instr-generate or -fprofile-generate for it), but to >> select which instrumentors to use for PGO (IR or FE). I prefer fewer flags >> too, but sharing flags for completely different purpose does not seem like >> the right thing to do. >> >> > Ah, right. It does seem like I'm misunderstanding the intention for that > flag. > > FWIW, I think...

Hi, I have a question regarding PGO. I collected profile data with the instrumentation build (-fprofile-instr-generate) and provided for PGO optimization in the second build (with -fprofile-instr-use=xxx.profdata). This works fine. Then I tried to provide the profile data to opt using the option -pgo-instr-use, but this causes an error with the message: "Not an IR level instrumentation

On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 7:04 PM, Sean Silva <chisophugis at gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 6:00 PM, Vedant Kumar <vsk at apple.com> wrote: > >> >> > On Mar 11, 2016, at 5:28 PM, Sean Silva <chisophugis at gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > >> > >> > On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 12:47 PM, Vedant Kumar <vsk at