search for: modocache

Thank you for the link and the suggestion to try master! I did so and discovered that it reproduces on master for me as well. The repro script I used (unchanged from before) and the output can be found here: https://gist.github.com/modocache/d9700166067f4a155820bc57d9bee1f3 (Note that the output looks nearly identical, but it's using clang-10 from the master branch of llvm-project.) I wonder why the buildbots would begin passing again, whereas locally the issue reproduces... very strange. Looking at the CMake invocation in the bu...

I ran into an LLVM/Clang crash when attempting to do the following: 1. Build Clang from the release/9.x branch source. 2. Use the Clang from (1) to build clangd on the release/9.x branch, with LLVM_ENABLE_MODULES=On. I wrote a script to reproduce the crash: https://gist.github.com/modocache/ac366ca9673b93bb21e75d3e72162608 At the above URL, you'll find a script `repro.sh` that reproduces the crash, and a file `out.txt` that contains the build output and the stack trace. I used the script to bisect, and bisect determined the first "bad" commit was: https://github.com/ll...

...rg> wrote: > > Awesome, thanks Jeremy. > > On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 11:02 AM Jeremy Morse > <jeremy.morse.llvm at gmail.com <mailto:jeremy.morse.llvm at gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> Hi Brian, >> >> On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 7:43 PM Brian Gesiak <modocache at gmail.com> wrote: >>> In other words, the value of %i is stored on the frame object, on the >>> heap, at an offset of 7 into the frame. I'm beginning to think a >>> fundamental fix for this issue would be to stop replacing >>> llvm.dbg.declare with llvm...

Vedant, Jeremy, Thanks a ton! I copied ASan's use of 'replaceDbgDeclare', think that worked! https://github.com/modocache/llvm-project/commit/afbc04e1dcba has some extremely quick and dirty changes I made (with no tests!), and a link to a Gist with the LLVM IR and DWARF produced, https://gist.github.com/modocache/6f29093ba2827946011b422ed3bd2903. There's only one kink: the spot I placed it has 'replaceDbgDecl...

Hi Brian, On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 7:43 PM Brian Gesiak <modocache at gmail.com> wrote: > In other words, the value of %i is stored on the frame object, on the > heap, at an offset of 7 into the frame. I'm beginning to think a > fundamental fix for this issue would be to stop replacing > llvm.dbg.declare with llvm.dbg.value, and instead replace...

...a conditional branch to a call to '@ __ubsan_handle_type_mismatch_v1'. The coro-split pass is not written to move these compare and branch instructions, and instead asserts. You can see an example of the IR generated with and without '-fsanitize=null' here: https://gist.github.com/modocache/54a036c3bf9c06882fe85122e105d153 -- PR36578.ll lines 82 to 104 show the problematic UBSan branches. Note that PR36578.nosan.ll, which was compiled without '-fsanitize=null', does not include these branches. I have several questions: * What's the best way for the LLVM coroutines transf...

> On Mar 19, 2018, at 3:44 PM, Brian Gesiak <modocache at gmail.com> wrote: > > Hello all! > (+cc Vedant Kumar, who I've been told knows a lot about UBSan!) > > I am trying to fix an assert that occurs when the transforms in llvm/lib/Transforms/Coroutines are applied to LLVM IR that has been generated with UBSan enabled -- speci...

...en showing variables in the current stack frame, when that frame corresponds to a coroutine function. To illustrate my problem, I uploaded C++ source, LLVM IR, a DWARF dump, and a shellscript demonstrating the invocations I used to create each of these, as a gist on GitHub: https://gist.github.com/modocache/670bc38e5a5ea2e0a3d6bafe8ea9c693 I'm looking at lldb's behavior on lines 23-40 of the C++ program, https://gist.github.com/modocache/670bc38e5a5ea2e0a3d6bafe8ea9c693#file-test-cpp-L23-L40, which I’ll paste below: ``` coro foo() { int i = 0; ++i; printf("%d\n", i); // 1 /...

...tDominatorTree &PDT = > FAM.getResult<llvm::PostDominatorTreeAnalysis>(F); > PDT.print(llvm::outs()); > } > return llvm::PreservedAnalyses::none(); > } > }; > ``` > > Here's a full example of the above: > https://gist.github.com/modocache/d5804ba567476e32cad1fd0850363532 > > I was just reading through this part of the codebase, so I'm a little > familiar with it now. Anyway, hope this helps! > > - Brian Gesiak > > On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 8:13 AM Mikhail Gudim via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.or...

...ize some of the optimization patterns that are tested for in the regression tests in 'llvm/test/Transforms/Coroutines'. I'd greatly appreciate code review on my patches! Or, please reply here with any questions/comments. - Brian Gesiak On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 8:39 PM Brian Gesiak <modocache at gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi all! > > I'm working on porting the LLVM passes for C++20 coroutines over to > the new pass manager infrastructure. Of the 4 passes, 3 are function > passes, and so porting them is straightforward and easy (my thanks to > those involved -- the...

Thanks for the response, Rui! On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 5:26 PM, Rui Ueyama <ruiu at google.com> wrote: > > Besides the features you pointed out, I think Xcode introduced a new way > of listing dynamic linking symbols, and I believe lld doesn't support that. > .tbd files, is that right? A colleague of mine pointed me to Apple's libtapi open source project [1], maybe I can

Dear all, I would like to use the PostDominatorTree in ArgPromotion. I did not find an example of how to use function level analysis inside CallGraphSCCPass. I tried to follow an example of how to use function-level pass in a module pass, but I hit "llvm_unreachable" in PMDataManager::addLowerLevelRequiredPass. What would be a proper way to make PostDominatorTree available in

Hello! (+cc Adam Nemet, since he presented on optimization remarks at LLVM Dev Mtg 2016) I have a large C++ program, which I am compiling using a sampling profile generated via perf and AutoFDO. I'd like to use this profile in order to show the hotness of each code path that is displayed in the new optimization remarks viewer tool ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qq0q1hfzidg). It seems,

> On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 8:13 AM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > > I don't object to adding some kind of filtering option, but in general it won't help. An important goal here is to provide analysis (and other) tools to users that present this information at a higher level. The users won't, and shouldn't, know exactly what kinds of messages the tools use.

Apologies for the slow response here Jeremy. Your reply has been incredibly helpful so far, I just need to try adding 'llvm.dbg.addr' myself to confirm that works. Thank you! - Brian Gesiak On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 11:04 AM Jeremy Morse <jeremy.morse.llvm at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Brian, > > Thanks for working on coroutines, the debugging experience, and in > particular

Hello all, In https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qq0q1hfzidg, Adam Nemet (cc'ed) describes optimization remarks and some future plans for the project. I had a few follow-up questions: 1. As an example of future work to be done, the talk mentions expanding the set of optimization passes that emit remarks. However, the Clang User Manual mentions that "optimization remarks do not really make