search for: moshtaghi

...rofiling dumping is not yet supported for buffer API, but since you are using Front-end based instrumentation/profile-use, value profiler is not turned on by default anyway. David On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 5:29 PM, Vedant Kumar <vsk at apple.com> wrote: > > On Dec 19, 2017, at 5:16 PM, Moshtaghi, Alireza < > Alireza.Moshtaghi at netapp.com> wrote: > > Thank you > So it does not seem to be relevant for what I’m trying to do. > I’m doing something unconventional. > The objective is to implement PGO and code coverage on a system that does > not exit and does not hav...

...mechanics but seems like something is going wrong because because fprofile-instr-use does not find profile data for the source files. Any suggestion? Thanks A From: <vsk at apple.com> on behalf of Vedant Kumar <vsk at apple.com> Date: Tuesday, December 19, 2017 at 11:32 AM To: "Moshtaghi, Alireza" <Alireza.Moshtaghi at netapp.com> Cc: llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>, Xinliang David Li <davidxl at google.com> Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] Question about : lprofValueProfNodes Hi, On Dec 19, 2017, at 10:26 AM, Moshtaghi, Alireza via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at l...

...the first section of the traditional concept "text segment" (which does not apply with LLD layout and GNU ld's -z separate-code layout) You need to use --image-base=0 https://releases.llvm.org/10.0.0/tools/lld/docs/ReleaseNotes.html#breaking-changes On Mon, Nov 16, 2020 at 10:31 AM Moshtaghi, Alireza <Alireza.Moshtaghi at netapp.com> wrote: > > Actually it is the combination of -Ttext 0x0 and --no-rosegment that cause the problem. You can reproduce using any c file using following: > clang test.c -fuse-ld=lld -Wl,-Ttext,0x0 -Wl,--no-rosegment > > A > > On 11...

...low I have pasted the latest design that we discussed... Now we would like to pick it up and do the implementation. 1) Is there any last change that we would like to add? 2) Has anyone been working on it? I haven't seen any thing new in the code so I assume the answer is no... Thanks Alireza Moshtaghi Senior Software Engineer Development Systems, Microchip Technology Subject: Troubling promotion of return value to Integer ... On May 29, 2008, at 10:30 AM, <Alireza.Moshtaghi at ...> <Alireza.Moshtaghi at ... > wrote: > Let me summarize what we discussed so far: > > 1)...

...uce. Thanks A On 11/16/20, 9:48 AM, "Fāng-ruì Sòng" <maskray at google.com> wrote: NetApp Security WARNING: This is an external email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. On Mon, Nov 16, 2020 at 9:05 AM Moshtaghi, Alireza <Alireza.Moshtaghi at netapp.com> wrote: > > My target requires that text section be at 0x0 so "-Ttext 0x0" is passed to the linker. > When I link with gold, it goes through; but lld fails. > Instead of always returning the same calculation,...

...course then the question would be if they are also applicable to parameters too? (because we use same attributes for parameters and return value)? or should we disallow then on parameters? Thoughts? A. ________________________________ From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu on behalf of Alireza.Moshtaghi at microchip.com Sent: Wed 3/4/2009 11:41 AM To: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu Subject: [LLVMdev] promotion of return value. Below I have pasted the latest design that we discussed... Now we would like to pick it up and do the implementation. 1) Is there any last change that we would like to add? 2) Ha...

...problems later. So I would like to see if anybody has a better answer for us. I guess the most important question is how best (if possible) can I clone a function before or during codegen. Currently we are cloning the function in AsmPrinter but it does not look good to me. Any thoughts? Alireza Moshtaghi Senior Software Engineer Development Systems, Microchip Technology

...-----Original Message----- From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] On Behalf Of Chris Lattner Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2008 9:23 PM To: LLVM Developers Mailing List Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] C embedded extensions and LLVM On Jan 29, 2008, at 9:56 AM, <Alireza.Moshtaghi at microchip.com> <Alireza.Moshtaghi at microchip.com > wrote: > Christopher, > It has been a while since we last talked about C embedded extensions > in > LLVM, I was moving back and froth from project to project and didn't > get > a chance to follow up. I was...

On 2020-06-02, Moshtaghi, Alireza wrote: >Sorry for the cryptic code but I had to modify stuff from original >In the following example see the difference when you comment or uncomment the line in the linker script: >============ test.c ============= : >struct orphan_dummy_anno_s { > void (*func)(void); >}...

.... Do you mind sharing more details about your project, particularly how soon you need the front end support and if you would be able to provide a way (ideally contributed back to LLVM) to regress these features going forward? -- Christopher Lamb On Jan 30, 2008, at 9:53 AM, <Alireza.Moshtaghi at microchip.com> <Alireza.Moshtaghi at microchip.com> wrote: Thank you Chris, That is great news... So his modifications are in llvm-2.2? How has Christopher tested them? Are there attributes or intrinsics that I can also use? A. -----Original Message----- From: llvmdev...

...----Original Message----- From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] On Behalf Of Chris Lattner Sent: Friday, September 28, 2007 5:01 PM To: LLVM Developers Mailing List Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Lowering operations to 8-bit! On Sep 28, 2007, at 4:53 PM, <Alireza.Moshtaghi at microchip.com> <Alireza.Moshtaghi at microchip.com> wrote: > ExpandOp is not called at all. > In SelectionDAGLegalize::HandleOp() only the ValueType is > considered in > the switch statement to decide if it is legal or promote or expand. > As I trace back (correct me...

...A. -----Original Message----- From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] On Behalf Of Evan Cheng Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2007 11:22 PM To: LLVM Developers Mailing List Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Lowering operations to 8-bit! On Oct 3, 2007, at 3:21 PM, Alireza.Moshtaghi at microchip.com wrote: > Thank you Evan, > I added the return Type::Int8Ty to the switch statement to get it to > work. > I don't know if this can have other consequences, I haven't yet > verified > if the generated Legalized DAG is correct though. If this works, plea...

...h. A. -----Original Message----- From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] On Behalf Of Evan Cheng Sent: Monday, October 01, 2007 3:23 PM To: LLVM Developers Mailing List Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Lowering operations to 8-bit! On Oct 1, 2007, at 11:33 AM, Alireza.Moshtaghi at microchip.com wrote: > So does that mean that LLVM can't lower automatically to 8-bit values? There is no inherent reason. LLVM should be able to lower to 8-bit values. It's probably a bug somewhere. In TargetLowering.h: bool isTypeLegal(MVT::ValueType VT) const { return !M...

Any thoughts on this? I would like to get it right before jumping into the nuts and bolts of it.... Thanks ________________________________ From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] On Behalf Of Alireza.Moshtaghi at microchip.com Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2009 10:39 AM To: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu Subject: RE: [LLVMdev] promotion of return value. Previously we talked about adding new attributes to function to identify the promotion class. > sign_ext_from_i8, sign_ext_from_i16 > zero_ext_from_i...

...ncerns me when you say modifying alloca to global references seems a more robust way of doing it. Could you elaborate on this? Thanks A. -----Original Message----- From: Chris Lattner [mailto:sabre at nondot.org] Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2008 8:29 PM To: LLVM Developers Mailing List Cc: Alireza Moshtaghi - C13012 Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] overlay attribute On Apr 10, 2008, at 10:44 AM, <Alireza.Moshtaghi at microchip.com> <Alireza.Moshtaghi at microchip.com > wrote: > I would like to make the following target specific modifications to > clang and would like to get some advice fr...

...----Original Message----- From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] On Behalf Of Chris Lattner Sent: Friday, September 28, 2007 1:55 PM To: LLVM Developers Mailing List Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Lowering operations to 8-bit! On Sep 28, 2007, at 1:10 PM, <Alireza.Moshtaghi at microchip.com> <Alireza.Moshtaghi at microchip.com> wrote: > Attached please find the gdb backtrace dump and the postscript file of > the DAG right before assertion. > The red Node is the current Node in LegalizeOp() Okay, this is the problem. LegalizeOp should only be cal...

...ward. Do you mind sharing more details about your project, particularly how soon you need the front end support and if you would be able to provide a way (ideally contributed back to LLVM) to regress these features going forward? -- Christopher Lamb On Jan 30, 2008, at 9:53 AM, <Alireza.Moshtaghi at microchip.com> <Alireza.Moshtaghi at microchip.com> wrote: > Thank you Chris, > That is great news... > So his modifications are in llvm-2.2? > How has Christopher tested them? Are there attributes or intrinsics > that > I can also use? > > A. > > ----...

On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 3:17 PM, Alireza Moshtaghi < Alireza.Moshtaghi at synopsys.com> wrote: > Hi, > I'm trying to annotate the final assembly output of my llvm codegen with > the corresponding input C statements. > It would've been super easy if the source information were included in the > IR debug info. But obviou...

On Oct 3, 2007, at 3:21 PM, Alireza.Moshtaghi at microchip.com wrote: > Thank you Evan, > I added the return Type::Int8Ty to the switch statement to get it to > work. > I don't know if this can have other consequences, I haven't yet > verified > if the generated Legalized DAG is correct though. If this works, plea...

Hi Ali, I assume this is primarily for interrupt function handling? If so, I have a few ideas to bounce your direction if you're interested. -j On Aug 6, 2009, at 3:32 PM, Alireza.Moshtaghi at microchip.com wrote: > I need to perform call graph analysis (after all modules are merged) > to > find which function calls which, and depending on the attributes that > each function has and what functions call it, I may need to clone it > and > modify some of calls to t...