search for: pcmarker

There seems to be semantic overlap with stackmap, patchpoint, and statepoint as well. I suspect we should remove pcmarker and forward serialize it in bitcode as a nop. Philip On 12/16/2015 02:14 PM, Justin Bogner via llvm-dev wrote: > Rob Lyerly via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> writes: >> I've seen previous messages about "llvm.pcmarker" not being supported on >> x86 (e.g...

Hi all, I've seen previous messages about "llvm.pcmarker" not being supported on x86 (e.g. http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2010-February/029239.html and http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2012-June/051104.html). However, these messages are several years old -- is the intrinsic still not implemented? -- Rob Lyerly Graduate Research A...

Hi list, For a tool I'm working on I'd like to know where instructions end up in compiled executables by looking them up in the symbol table. Therefore, I've been trying to use the llvm.pcmarker Intrinsic, but I've had no luck. When I pass .bc files with this intrinsic into llc, I'm given this error: LLVM ERROR: Cannot yet select: 0x2026938: ch PCMarker 0x1f0c678, 0x20268b0 I've attempted this with programs targeting both x86 and ppc, with the same results. Is this intrinsic...

...10 at 1:13 PM, Nathan McCauley <nathan.mccauley at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi list, > > For a tool I'm working on I'd like to know where instructions end up in > compiled executables by looking them up in the symbol table.  Therefore, > I've been trying to use the  llvm.pcmarker Intrinsic, but I've had no luck. > When I pass .bc files with this intrinsic into llc, I'm given this error: > > LLVM ERROR: Cannot yet select: 0x2026938: ch PCMarker 0x1f0c678, 0x20268b0 > > I've attempted this with programs targeting both x86 and ppc, with the same >...

Hi, I'm also working on a tool in which I'd like to know the instruction PCs. So for now, the intrinsic is still not supported on x86? -Ang -- View this message in context: http://llvm.1065342.n5.nabble.com/State-of-llvm-pcmarker-Intrinsic-tp31677p46619.html Sent from the LLVM - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

...ing on a tool in which I'd like to know the instruction PCs. > So > for now, the intrinsic is still not supported on x86? > No, but it's very easy to implement. Andrew > -Ang > > -- > View this message in context: > http://llvm.1065342.n5.nabble.com/State-of-llvm-pcmarker-Intrinsic-tp31677p46619.html > Sent from the LLVM - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev &g...

Hi Andrew, So do you know on which architectures is this intrinsic implemented? Thank you! -Ang -- View this message in context: http://llvm.1065342.n5.nabble.com/State-of-llvm-pcmarker-Intrinsic-tp31677p46621.html Sent from the LLVM - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

...s to the Module, though > that is less appealing (ideally the code generator would not hack on the > LLVM module at all... we're not there yet, but slowly getting there). Yea, I understand that. That's why I've asked. > Another thing that might be interesting is the new llvm.pcmarker intrinsic > that Andrew recently added. I have no idea if it would be useful to you > or not, but... it's documented here: > http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu/docs/LangRef.html#i_pcmarker In fact, I'm having problems exactly while lowering the pcmarker intrinsic ;-) Need to get in to assem...

On Fri, 15 Apr 2005, Vladimir Prus wrote: >> Another thing that might be interesting is the new llvm.pcmarker intrinsic >> that Andrew recently added. I have no idea if it would be useful to you >> or not, but... it's documented here: >> http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu/docs/LangRef.html#i_pcmarker > > In fact, I'm having problems exactly while lowering the pcmarker intrinsic ;-) &g...

...ands point into the string table. Second, you could add the functions to the Module, though that is less appealing (ideally the code generator would not hack on the LLVM module at all... we're not there yet, but slowly getting there). Another thing that might be interesting is the new llvm.pcmarker intrinsic that Andrew recently added. I have no idea if it would be useful to you or not, but... it's documented here: http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu/docs/LangRef.html#i_pcmarker -Chris -- http://nondot.org/sabre/ http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu/

Hello, I just wrote the code like this: BuildMI(BB, NM::CALL, 1) .addExternalSymbol(("_lvksda_control_marker_" + lexical_cast<string>(bb)).c_str()); and got some unexpected string in the assembler output. The problem is that when external symbol is added to MachineInstruction, MachineOperand is created with the char*

Hi, I have written a code layout feedback directed optimization pass, which currently works for basic block reordering and function reordering. It very effectively improves the speedup (we could improve Python by 30%). The profiling method is window based context sensitive which is based on reference affinity (

On Friday 15 April 2005 19:29, Chris Lattner wrote: > On Fri, 15 Apr 2005, Vladimir Prus wrote: > >> Another thing that might be interesting is the new llvm.pcmarker > >> intrinsic that Andrew recently added. I have no idea if it would be > >> useful to you or not, but... it's documented here: > >> http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu/docs/LangRef.html#i_pcmarker > > > > In fact, I'm having problems exactly while lowering the...

...This would be trivial to do. To optimize it, you could analyze the CFG so that control equivalent basic blocks use a single counter (e.g., the single-entry block and the single-exit block are executed the same number of times, so they only need 1 counter). Another option might be to use the pcmarker intrinsic. Apparently it's used for matching up LLVM IR to machine instructions for use in processor simulators, though I have never used it myself. The Giri project has support for recording the execution of every basic block, but it might be more heavy-weight than you need. I also don...

...ial to do. To optimize it, you could analyze the CFG so that control > equivalent basic blocks use a single counter (e.g., the single-entry block > and the single-exit block are executed the same number of times, so they > only need 1 counter). > > Another option might be to use the pcmarker intrinsic. Apparently it's > used for matching up LLVM IR to machine instructions for use in processor > simulators, though I have never used it myself. > > The Giri project has support for recording the execution of every basic > block, but it might be more heavy-weight than yo...

Hi, all Is there a way of getting the basic block offset from its parent function ? What I'm trying to do is to get an execution count of each basic blocks, so I need to know the starting address of each basic blocks. Obviously we can't get the absolute address before linking the program, but the offset relative to parent function should be available so I can take it and get the function

...s (except for the initial namespace prefix): @llvm.gcroot @llvm.gcread @llvm.gcwrite @llvm.experimental.stackmap @llvm.experimental.patchpoint @llvm.experimental.gc.statepoint @llvm.returnaddress @llvm.frameaddress @llvm.localescape @llvm.localrecover @llvm.stacksave @llvm.stackrestore @llvm.pcmarker @llvm.readcyclecounter @llvm.bitreverse @llvm.eh.begincatch @llvm.eh.endcatch @llvm.eh.padparam @llvm.stackprotector @llvm.stackprotectorcheck @llvm.objectsize @llvm.donothing Words with dots: @llvm.sadd.with.overflow @llvm.uadd.with.overflow @llvm.ssub.with.overflow @llvm.usub.with.overflow...

...ize it, you could analyze the CFG so that control >> equivalent basic blocks use a single counter (e.g., the single-entry block >> and the single-exit block are executed the same number of times, so they >> only need 1 counter). >> >> Another option might be to use the pcmarker intrinsic. Apparently it's >> used for matching up LLVM IR to machine instructions for use in processor >> simulators, though I have never used it myself. >> >> The Giri project has support for recording the execution of every basic >> block, but it might be more...

Hi, >> In the objdump for binary, there is always an address associated with an >> instruction. >> In the bitcode file, is there a way to address an instruction? It does >> not have to be a single ID like objdump. > no, there is no way in general. You can always start a new basic block > just before your instruction and take the address of that basic block. >

....word 0 ; "find a gcroot at 0(%esp)" -- end -- The major challenges posed by the frame table are: 1. Making a constant reference to a return address. - Labels are not global values, so ocamlopt's approach is a no-go. - Is llvm.pcmarker in any way useful? It couldn't present the correct address for a caller-save calling convention. - A constant expression like OFFSET + (intptr_t) FUNCTION can get the job done, but this requires instruction size computations which I can only find for ARM (in support of...