search for: pruner

...shared library which was already unloaded. I thought we had fixed that, but maybe not?  Looking again, it looks like the patch got reverted and I didn't notice. -Eli On 5/14/2018 10:18 PM, Simone Atzeni via llvm-dev wrote: > This is the correct path to the pass: > https://github.com/PRUNERS/sword/blob/master/lib/Transforms/Instrumentation/InstrumentParallel.cpp > > On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 10:06 PM, Simone Atzeni <simone.at at gmail.com > <mailto:simone.at at gmail.com>> wrote: > > Hi all, > > I was porting my pass from LLVM 4.0 to 6.0 and I a...

...orting my pass from LLVM 4.0 to 6.0 and I am getting a segmentation fault. I was able to obtain only the info below from GDB. I tried to debug with some printf and the runOnFunction runs correctly. Any idea/suggestion about what is going on? The source code of the pass is here: https://github.com/PRUNERS/sword/blob/master/lib/Sword.cpp Any help is much appreciated, Thanks! Simone #0 0x00007f1d93735170 in ?? () #1 0x00000000017d2b96 in llvm::object_deleter<llvm::SmallVector<std::pair<llvm::PassManagerBuilder::ExtensionPointTy, std::function<void (llvm::PassManagerBuilder const&,...

This is the correct path to the pass: https://github.com/PRUNERS/sword/blob/master/lib/Transforms/Instrumentation/InstrumentParallel.cpp On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 10:06 PM, Simone Atzeni <simone.at at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > I was porting my pass from LLVM 4.0 to 6.0 and I am getting a segmentation > fault. > I was able to obtain on...

...d. > > I thought we had fixed that, but maybe not? Looking again, it looks like > the patch got reverted and I didn't notice. > > -Eli > > > On 5/14/2018 10:18 PM, Simone Atzeni via llvm-dev wrote: > > This is the correct path to the pass: https://github.com/ > PRUNERS/sword/blob/master/lib/Transforms/Instrumentation/ > InstrumentParallel.cpp > > On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 10:06 PM, Simone Atzeni <simone.at at gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> I was porting my pass from LLVM 4.0 to 6.0 and I am getting a >> segmenta...

...o the cache file of the same name, are writing the same content, right? (c) If the process needs to read from the cache file, it might wait a bit while the file is open for 'exclusive write'. If within a certain period the cache file doesn't get released by a writer or gets removed by a pruner - oh, well, we have a hit miss. After all, using cache is just an acceleration. Correctness is more important. (d) If we are concerned about data integrity of a cache file (e.g., a writer started to write to a file and something bad happened in the middle), we could do additional checks (I suspect...

...of the same name, > are writing the same content, right? > (c) If the process needs to read from the cache file, it might wait a bit > while the file is open for 'exclusive write'. If within a certain period > the cache file doesn’t get released by a writer or gets removed by a pruner > – oh, well, we have a hit miss. After all, using cache is just an > acceleration. Correctness is more important. > (d) If we are concerned about data integrity of a cache file (e.g., a > writer started to write to a file and something bad happened in the > middle), we could do addi...

...the cache file of the same name, are writing the same content, right? > (c) If the process needs to read from the cache file, it might wait a bit while the file is open for 'exclusive write'. If within a certain period the cache file doesn’t get released by a writer or gets removed by a pruner – oh, well, we have a hit miss. After all, using cache is just an acceleration. Correctness is more important. > (d) If we are concerned about data integrity of a cache file (e.g., a writer started to write to a file and something bad happened in the middle), we could do additional checks (I sus...

...the cache file of the same name, are writing the same content, right? > (c) If the process needs to read from the cache file, it might wait a bit while the file is open for 'exclusive write'. If within a certain period the cache file doesn’t get released by a writer or gets removed by a pruner – oh, well, we have a hit miss. After all, using cache is just an acceleration. Correctness is more important. > (d) If we are concerned about data integrity of a cache file (e.g., a writer started to write to a file and something bad happened in the middle), we could do additional checks (I sus...

...ng to the cache file of the same name, are writing the same content, right? (c) If the process needs to read from the cache file, it might wait a bit while the file is open for 'exclusive write'. If within a certain period the cache file doesn’t get released by a writer or gets removed by a pruner – oh, well, we have a hit miss. After all, using cache is just an acceleration. Correctness is more important. (d) If we are concerned about data integrity of a cache file (e.g., a writer started to write to a file and something bad happened in the middle), we could do additional checks (I suspect...

...cache file of the same name, are writing the same content, right? >> (c) If the process needs to read from the cache file, it might wait a bit while the file is open for 'exclusive write'. If within a certain period the cache file doesn’t get released by a writer or gets removed by a pruner – oh, well, we have a hit miss. After all, using cache is just an acceleration. Correctness is more important. >> (d) If we are concerned about data integrity of a cache file (e.g., a writer started to write to a file and something bad happened in the middle), we could do additional checks (I...

...ng to the cache file of the same name, are writing the same content, right? (c) If the process needs to read from the cache file, it might wait a bit while the file is open for 'exclusive write'. If within a certain period the cache file doesn’t get released by a writer or gets removed by a pruner – oh, well, we have a hit miss. After all, using cache is just an acceleration. Correctness is more important. (d) If we are concerned about data integrity of a cache file (e.g., a writer started to write to a file and something bad happened in the middle), we could do additional checks (I suspect...

...he same name, > are writing the same content, right? > > (c) If the process needs to read from the cache file, it might wait a bit > while the file is open for 'exclusive write'. If within a certain period > the cache file doesn’t get released by a writer or gets removed by a pruner > – oh, well, we have a hit miss. After all, using cache is just an > acceleration. Correctness is more important. > > (d) If we are concerned about data integrity of a cache file (e.g., a > writer started to write to a file and something bad happened in the > middle), we could do...

...ng to the cache file of the same name, are writing the same content, right? (c) If the process needs to read from the cache file, it might wait a bit while the file is open for 'exclusive write'. If within a certain period the cache file doesn’t get released by a writer or gets removed by a pruner – oh, well, we have a hit miss. After all, using cache is just an acceleration. Correctness is more important. (d) If we are concerned about data integrity of a cache file (e.g., a writer started to write to a file and something bad happened in the middle), we could do additional checks (I suspect...

...he same name, > are writing the same content, right? > > (c) If the process needs to read from the cache file, it might wait a bit > while the file is open for 'exclusive write'. If within a certain period > the cache file doesn’t get released by a writer or gets removed by a pruner > – oh, well, we have a hit miss. After all, using cache is just an > acceleration. Correctness is more important. > > (d) If we are concerned about data integrity of a cache file (e.g., a > writer started to write to a file and something bad happened in the > middle), we could do...

...ng to the cache file of the same name, are writing the same content, right? (c) If the process needs to read from the cache file, it might wait a bit while the file is open for 'exclusive write'. If within a certain period the cache file doesn’t get released by a writer or gets removed by a pruner – oh, well, we have a hit miss. After all, using cache is just an acceleration. Correctness is more important. (d) If we are concerned about data integrity of a cache file (e.g., a writer started to write to a file and something bad happened in the middle), we could do additional checks (I suspect...

...ot;catch block", as required), as well as inlining "invoke" instructions. In addition, we also now have a -prune-eh pass which removes EH information from functions which provably cannot throw (which is a LOT of them). 5. The 'gccas' utility runs the inliner and EH pruner by default now, so small functions should be inlined as you would expect. The inliner is currently tuned to not be very aggressive. Currently it only inlines functions if the result will be a SMALLER program, which is often the case when inlining small C++ methods. 6. The LLVM infras...