search for: rafaelauler

Hi, I was interested in trying out LLVM BOLT and generated profile data using Linux perf using the following: perf record -e cycles:u -o perf.data <command> This is without the use of LBR so I understand the performance improvements may not be much but this was more for becoming familiar with BOLT's commands. I then run: perf2bolt -nl -p perf.data -o perf.fdata <binary> and I

...I wrote http://reviews.llvm.org/D10952 to address your last problem. There is also the related http://reviews.llvm.org/D10918 by Denis to address how you can directly assign sections to segments in the script. Both are in code review. Rafael auelr On Fri, Jul 3, 2015 at 12:29 AM, Rafael Auler <rafaelauler at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Ed, > > It looks like lld is failing at mapping two sections far apart from each > other into two different segments. Since it puts these two sections (.text > and .data) in the same ELF segment, the segment is forced to be huge > because the start ad...

...ring to machine code. An example: %3 = fcmp %1, %2 %6 = fcmp %4, %5 %7 = and %3, %6 %8 = and %7, %foo Sometimes you'll be screw if you want to play reassociate %7 and %8. I don't see a easy way of catching them in theorem provers. Haohui On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 5:03 PM, Rafael Auler <rafaelauler at gmail.com> wrote: > Hello all, thanks for the feedback! >> >> It sounds like you are planning to follow the approach of Joshi, Nelson >> and >> Randall ("Denali: A Goal-directed Superoptimizer") in that you don't >> intend >> to exhaustivel...

Hi, Thanks for your patch, Huang. It looks good to me. Just one comment: can you write a testcase, similar to the others used for linker script testing, with your example? Alternatively, you can modify lld/test/elf/linkerscript/sections-with-wildcards.test to test your case. This will make your patch complete and ready for commit, and will ensure we do not regress on this bug if this code is ever

Hi, I've encountered a newly introduced bug in lld today. I am building my program with clang and lld on an X86-64 Ubuntu Linux machine. Command line: clang main.c The compiled program invokes the "main" function multiple times until it closes with a segmentation fault. This affects even the most primitive programs like "int main() { return 0; }". The problem

Hello, I am in a developing process for a new llvm backend (target). Can I create the new target subdirectory out of source. My point is that I want to create a separate svn repo only for my new backend directory and use the llvm project as an external repository. I have to amke some changes to llvm project, to integrate my backend to the llvm, but I won't commit my changes to the llvm

Hi all, Which are the command-line options available to pass linker script, library path etc.. to lld? I see minimal options listed, when i say, lld -flavor gnu -help Thanks in advance, -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20150209/e7a6f7b8/attachment.html>

Hello all, thanks for the feedback! It sounds like you are planning to follow the approach of Joshi, Nelson and > Randall ("Denali: A Goal-directed Superoptimizer") in that you don't intend > to exhaustively enumerate all possible code sequences, and see if they are > the same as the original only better; but instead start from the original > code > sequence and

...require global context. > > > > It is conceivable to have an option to control the level of granularity at > the possible cost of performance. > > > > thanks, > > > > David > > > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 2, 2019 at 6:18 PM Rafael Auler <rafaelauler at fb.com> wrote: > > You’re correct, except that, in Propeller, CFI duplication happens for > every basic block as it operates with the conservative assumption that a > block can be put anywhere by the linker. That’s a significant bloat that is > not cleaned up later. So, during...

...n, and another containing the cold blocks? The linker would have less flexibility in placement, but maybe it doesn't actually need that flexibility? Apologies if this is obvious for those who actually know what they're talking about here. :) On Wed, Oct 2, 2019 at 6:18 PM Rafael Auler <rafaelauler at fb.com> wrote: > You’re correct, except that, in Propeller, CFI duplication happens for > every basic block as it operates with the conservative assumption that a > block can be put anywhere by the linker. That’s a significant bloat that is > not cleaned up later. So, during link...

...r > front-end throughput may also require global context. > > It is conceivable to have an option to control the level of granularity at > the possible cost of performance. > > thanks, > > David > > > >> >> On Wed, Oct 2, 2019 at 6:18 PM Rafael Auler <rafaelauler at fb.com> wrote: >> >>> You’re correct, except that, in Propeller, CFI duplication happens for >>> every basic block as it operates with the conservative assumption that a >>> block can be put anywhere by the linker. That’s a significant bloat that is >>&g...

Hello, I want to present my project for GSoC 2011 for LLVM below. It would be very nice to hear suggestions and your opinion, thanks! Superoptimization for LLVM IR Objective This project focuses on implementing superoptimization algorithms targeted at the LLVM IR. The project uses arbitrary LLVM bitcode as a training set to discover new peephole optimizations that can be later integrated into

...require global context. > > > > It is conceivable to have an option to control the level of granularity at > the possible cost of performance. > > > > thanks, > > > > David > > > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 2, 2019 at 6:18 PM Rafael Auler <rafaelauler at fb.com> wrote: > > You’re correct, except that, in Propeller, CFI duplication happens for > every basic block as it operates with the conservative assumption that a > block can be put anywhere by the linker. That’s a significant bloat that is > not cleaned up later. So, during...

Hi All, Congratulations on the major progress on the llvm linker lld over the past year including the new linker script support. This really makes it possible to ditch binutils altogether. It looks like lld's MEMORY sections are currently parsed but not evaluated, but so far that hasn't been a problem. The only snag is I can't figure out how to define the start of the .data section

I was hoping to not have to build LLVM myself, especially on Windows. Can anybody help me with the Windows installer? Failing that, I find the directions for how to compile on Windows hard to follow? Can I build using Cygwin? Regards, Eric On 9/29/14, 8:11 AM, Rafael Auler wrote: > I'm not sure about the Windows installer, but if you build and install > LLVM for Windows from the

...require global context. > > > > It is conceivable to have an option to control the level of granularity at > the possible cost of performance. > > > > thanks, > > > > David > > > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 2, 2019 at 6:18 PM Rafael Auler <rafaelauler at fb.com> wrote: > > You’re correct, except that, in Propeller, CFI duplication happens for > every basic block as it operates with the conservative assumption that a > block can be put anywhere by the linker. That’s a significant bloat that is > not cleaned up later. So, during...

I'm a bit confused by this subthread -- doesn't BOLT have the exact same CFI bloat issue? From my cursory reading of the propellor doc, the CFI duplication is _necessary_ to represent discontiguous functions, not anything particular to the way Propellor happens to generate those discontiguous functions. And emitting discontiguous functions is a fundamental goal of this, right? On Wed,

Hi, On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 11:32 AM, Matt Johnson <johnso87 at crhc.illinois.edu>wrote: > Hi Daniel, > > > Hi folks, > > > > I couldn't find a specific XOR (OR and AND) optimization on llvm, and > > therefore I am about to implement it. > > But first I would like to check with you guys that it really does not > exist. > > > > For a

Open the file toolset-vs2013.props and you'll understand what's happening and where the path is set. It tries to fetch the LLVM installation path from the Windows registry. Just fix this (maybe editing your registry or editing the .props file, whatever suits you best). On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 5:33 PM, Eric Mader <emader at gmx.us> wrote: > I copied the x64 toolsets by hand and

Your install dir has a whitespace. Have you tried quoting? e.g. <LLVMInstallDir>"C:\Program Files (x86)\LLVM"</LLVMInstallDir> Best regards, Rafael Auler On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 7:38 PM, Eric Mader <emader at gmx.us> wrote: > I changed tooset-vs2013.props to this: > > <Project xmlns="http://schemas.microsoft.com/developer/msbuild/2003" >