search for: vedants

> 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/bin:/usr/bin:/bin:/usr/sbin:/sbin > > I wonder how

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, > > I prepared the macOS packages for the past few releases, but have less time to keep up with

Should the binaries included in an LLVM release be generally useful to a wide audience of toolchain users, or is it OK to ship tools that are only really useful for LLVM development? If the former is the case, can we consider not shipping tools which are exclusively for testing the compiler? E.g removing these 5 binaries from 5.0.2-rc1 would have saved over a hundred megabytes in uncompressed

Yea at first I was worried that maybe I changed the semantics 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>

> 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.

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 ? > >

Hi, I'd like to announce a new code coverage bot: http://lab.llvm.org:8080/coverage/coverage-reports/clang/index.html The purpose of the bot is to make high-quality coverage reports available to llvm developers, and to provide additional testing for clang's code coverage implementation. The coverage data clang generates allows the reporting tool to render execution counts for code

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 provided by my binutils now, so maybe I have to modify binutils code to provide ELF header

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 PM, Vedant Kumar <vsk at apple.com> wrote: > > On Dec 19, 2017, at 5:16 PM,

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 first pass) as input for the second debugify. What we need is to take the fresh output of

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,

> 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

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). The returned value of " OF->getArch()" is decided by "

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_machine=target”) and the other was tools/obj2yaml/elf2yaml.cpp(GDB stopped only at the

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 MayAlias; > > Does changing this condition fix the issue? E.g

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 { PassManager::add(createDebugifyPass()); PassManager::add(P);

The actual DWARF emission for call site parameters is gated inside of DwarfDebug::constructCallSiteEntryDIEs by `tuneForGDB() || tuneForLLDB()`. However, we are creating+updating CallSiteInfo (basically, in-memory only bookkeeping used by the backend to keep track of call sites) even when the debugger tuning is set to the Sony debugger. If this creates problems, feel free to file a bug and

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 { >

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 gmail.com> wrote: > > + Vedant: what do you think about the last point, since

I've done some measurements on this. The test program I have just calls Function::Create(), F->setPersonalityFn(), and then F->eraseFromParent() in a loop 2^20 times. Results: pre-patch --- min: 1.10s max: 1.13s avg: 1.11s post-patch --- min: 1.26s max: 1.35s avg: 1.29s So we expect to lose 0.2 seconds per 1 million functions (with personality functions) in a