search for: vedant

> On Sep 22, 2017, at 11:36 AM, Vedant Kumar <vsk at apple.com> wrote: > > Ah, the problem goes away once I build clang-func-mapping. > > I stripped some stuff out, but here's pretty much what clang/test/lit.cfg.py says my PATH is: > > ** PATH **: /Volumes/Builds/llvm.org-coverage-braces-RA/bin:/usr/local...

Vedant, Thanks for building the packages before. Could you detail what's required to build these binaries on macOS so that someone else could replicate it? Thanks, Tobias On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 8:29 PM Vedant Kumar via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Hi Gio, > >...

...ries from 5.0.2-rc1 would have saved over a hundred megabytes in uncompressed space for macOS users: Binary name | Size in megabytes -------------------------------------------- clang-check: 54.6725 llvm-c-test: 33.8384 clang-import-test: 20.6708 c-index-test: 19.8632 verify-uselistorder: 2.84348 vedant

...of how it looked in PATH, and you had clang-func-mapping in your PATH somewhere before but now lit was building a different PATH. But I looked at that change and it wasn't even creating that substitution before. So it looks like that CL is indeed the problem. On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 11:38 AM Vedant Kumar <vsk at apple.com> wrote: > > > On Sep 22, 2017, at 11:36 AM, Vedant Kumar <vsk at apple.com> wrote: > > > > Ah, the problem goes away once I build clang-func-mapping. > > > > I stripped some stuff out, but here's pretty much what clang/test/...

> On Mar 16, 2018, at 2:30 PM, Son Tuan VU <sontuan.vu119 at gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Vedant, > > Thank you for your reply. I think I can make this debugify-each mode, but I guess this is reserved for your GSoC project ? No, there's no reserved work. If you'd like to work on this I encourage you to do so. There's plenty of other work slated for the GSoC project. That sa...

Mhm I see now, thanks for your explanation! Son Tuan Vu On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 10:58 PM, Vedant Kumar <vsk at apple.com> wrote: > > On Mar 16, 2018, at 2:30 PM, Son Tuan VU <sontuan.vu119 at gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Vedant, > > Thank you for your reply. I think I can make this debugify-each mode, but > I guess this is reserved for your GSoC project ? > &gt...

...ented version of the latest top-of-tree compiler. It generates new reports roughly every four hours. These reports can be used to find dead code, find fishy code, and to gauge the effectiveness of our smoke tests. If you have any feedback about the bot or the coverage reports, please let me know! vedant p.s: There is already a coverage bot which runs "check-all" and uses gcov. If you'd prefer those reports, you can find them here -- http://llvm.org/reports/coverage/

Hi vedant, 1. First, I think your theory is right that llvm’s object file reading libraries do not “understand” the architecture I’m working on. Since I’m using binutils as assembler which means llvm can only provide asm and object file is provided by biutils. I think these ELF header information is p...

What Vedant said -- the profiler runtime provides buffer API for profile dumping. Note that value profiling 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...

Hi Vedant, Thank you for your reply. I think I can make this debugify-each mode, but I guess this is reserved for your GSoC project ? However, if I understand correctly, we do not want to take the output of the first check-debugify (I mean the .ll file with potentially all the WARNINGs and ERRORs after the...

Hi, Thanks you all for the collaboration! :) Paul, > This is not how tuning-controlled features are supposed to work. I will comment on the review. I see, I am working on addressing the comments from the [1]. I will update the diff asap. Thanks. Vedant, There are no entry values generated at -O0 level, but I will add a test case for it. Thanks. Best regards, Djordje On 8.2.20. 02:41, Robinson, Paul via llvm-dev wrote: > This is not how tuning-controlled features are supposed to work.  I will comment on the review. > > --paulr > &...

> On Dec 18, 2016, at 3:48 AM, Dmitry Golovin <dima at golovin.in> wrote: > > > > 16.12.2016, 18:23, "Vedant Kumar" <vsk at apple.com>: >>> On Dec 16, 2016, at 7:06 AM, Dmitry Golovin via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >>> >>> I want to build LLVM-based toolchain with Musl, I have LLVM sources with clang and lld (under `tools` directory) and lib...

Hi vedant, The program didn't pass the checking "OF->getArch() != Triple(Arch).getArch()" loadBinaryFormat in CoverageMappingReader.cpp and returned an error. It's because "OF->getArch()" returned null and "Triple(Arch).getArch()" returned XXXX(name of my arch)....

Hi vedant, 1. The definition is from llvm/Supprot/ELF.h. But this machine information(e_machine) is given to compiler at lib/MC/ELFObjectWriter.cpp. I greped the whole llvm project and found that e_machine was assigned at only two files. One was lib/MC/ELFObjectWriter.cpp(there was an comment said “e...

Hi, On 04/18/2016 05:28 PM, Vedant Kumar wrote: > This sounds like a bug to me. > > >> // If the last (struct) indices are constants and are equal, the other indices >> // might be also be dynamically equal, so the GEPs can alias. >> if (C1 && C2 && C1 == C2) >> return MayAl...

Hi Vedant, I have tried to implement the fix you proposed, but it didn't work as expected. I created a new *Module* Pass Manager (not Function Pass Manager) and override the *add()* method like this: class DebugifyEachPassManager : public legacy::PassManager { public: void add(Pass *P) override {...

...9;ll address it. However, there's an upside to maintaining all this CallSiteInfo even if TAG_call_site_parameters won't be emitted. The backend asserts whenever a MachineInstr carrying CallSiteInfo is destroyed without the call information being updated. This provides useful test coverage. vedant > On Feb 7, 2020, at 2:50 PM, Robinson, Paul <paul.robinson at sony.com> wrote: > > I’ve asked someone to check with our (Sony) debugger people, likely hear back early next week. I’d say proceed with having it default on/off based on tuning as you described, and if my guys want to...

Hello, > On Apr 26, 2018, at 6:44 AM, Son Tuan VU <sontuan.vu119 at gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Vedant, > > I have tried to implement the fix you proposed, but it didn't work as expected. I created a new Module Pass Manager (not Function Pass Manager) and override the add() method like this: > > class DebugifyEachPassManager : public legacy::PassManager { > public: > void...

Hi Vedant, Thanks for your reply. More comments inline. Son Tuan Vu On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 10:19 PM, Vedant Kumar <vsk at apple.com> wrote: > Hi, > > + Chandler, who has a lot more experience with our pass managers. > > On Apr 20, 2018, at 12:56 PM, Son Tuan VU <sontuan.vu119 at...

...in a project. I've only tested on my machine, and I haven't accounted for performance variations in other parts of the codebase where code was removed. I'm happy enough with the patch and think that this is a reasonable tradeoff. Should we go with this? http://reviews.llvm.org/D13829 vedant > On Oct 16, 2015, at 5:56 PM, Duncan P. N. Exon Smith <dexonsmith at apple.com> wrote: > > >> On 2015-Oct-16, at 13:54, Vedant Kumar <vsk at apple.com> wrote: >> >> Here is a WIP patch as promised: >> >> http://reviews.llvm.org/D13829 >...