similar to: confused about directory permissions for profdata

Here is a second, somewhat related question to my last one. When looking over the network trace I have ran into something I cannot explain. It may be quite proper, in which case I am misreading the trace. But I would appreciate it if someone would explain this to me. In packet 109 of the trace (during a login with no profile on the server), I see a "NT Create AndX request"

I've been at this for a few weeks, and have read quite a bit on the subject. I try to follow "Samba-3 by Example" as much as I can. I'll apologize in advance if my problems should be discussed elsewhere. Samba's involvement is integral, but I have no reason to suspect Samba is at fault. I'll start by describing what is working. DHCP and DNS look fine. Samba

Hello, Due the trees, I can't see the forest. I understand the concept of home directories on the file server becoming a share for the user on the smb-client computer. I have a vague idea of "profiles", but I'm lost at "profdata". How does that last one fit in? Where can I read more about it? (profdata is common keyword on the search engines) Is there a document

Duncan, Justin, I'm about to submit a series of patches that add writing capabilities for sample profiles in both text and binary formats. Soon, I'll add a third format (to make it interoperable with GCC). I would like to add some profile maintenance utilities as well: merging, dumping and converting. It seems like the best place would be tools/llvm-profdata. But that means that I need

Hi! UBSan bootstrap bot fails with error report on 5 llvm-cov and llvm-profdata lit-tests: http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/sanitizer-x86_64-linux-bootstrap/builds/4526/steps/check-llvm%20ubsan/logs/stdio Also see http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=20815. The error reports look vaild: in general it's incorrect to load uint64_t, or even structures like "RawHeader" or

I haven't tested it, but it looks to me like llvm-profdata merge (well, InstrProfWriter specifically) would not have deterministic output. Certainly the textual output iterates over FunctionData which is a StringMap of SmallDenseMaps, neither of which has deterministic iteration. The binary writing looks like it'd have similar issues - looping through these unordered maps & writing

Yes, that was it! Now that I took a closer look, the guide also states that I should use the stage2 build. Silly me. Thanks! On Tue, 3 Sep 2019 at 19:31, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > I /guess/ you actually want /path/to/release_build/llvm-profdata because > the profiles are generated from binaries compiled with the release build, > so it's the release build

On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 7:26 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 7:03 PM Xinliang David Li <davidxl at google.com> > wrote: > >> On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 6:27 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> I haven't tested it, but it looks to me like llvm-profdata merge (well,

Hi! I'm trying to build a fast Clang for myself to use for debug builds on Clang itself, but I've been struggling for a very long time on it. Could you please help? I've been following this guide: https://llvm.org/docs/HowToBuildWithPGO.html I've quickly learned that its outdated, because the script it talks about doesn't work with the monorepo layout at all, but in any

On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 7:03 PM Xinliang David Li <davidxl at google.com> wrote: > On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 6:27 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > >> I haven't tested it, but it looks to me like llvm-profdata merge (well, >> InstrProfWriter specifically) would not have deterministic output. >> >> Certainly the textual output iterates

Hi all, I'd liked to get your thoughts on possibly adding a generic key-value store to the profile data formats for 'metadata'. Some potential uses cases: *I. Profile Features* The most basic use could be as a central repository for internal bits of housekeeping information about the profile data. For example, to differentiate between FE and IR instrumentation:

Our Samba installation is working perfectly, thanks to John Terpstra's generous assistance. I'm pretty sure that I would have been at it for a couple of weeks and still not gotten all of the way there. I'll try to summarize what was done, since it never hurts to mention a few things too many times. While I have read John's book online, and tried to follow it, there were

On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 11:41 AM, Xinliang David Li <davidxl at google.com> wrote: > Tagging profile data with such information is generally useful. My > thoughts are > > 1) such information is probably not needed to be stored in raw format > profile data -- so no runtime changes are needed -- only llvm-profdata > and indexed format need to be enhanced to support this.

Hi all! It seems I came across on issue with coverage mapping (http://www.llvm.org/docs/CoverageMappingFormat.html) check on: llvm revision: r228136 clang Last Changed Rev: 228121 build: Debug+Asserts OS: ubuntu 14.04 Here is simple snippets test1.c: NOT OK ================== #include <stdio.h> static int foo() { return 42; } int main() { return 0; } ================== cp src/test1.c

Hi all, I am working on adding PGO to LDC (LLVM D Compiler). The current implementation 1) uses LLVM's InstrProf pass to generate an instrumented executable 2) links to compiler-rt/lib/profile for the runtime functionality to write a raw profile data file 3) uses llvm-profdata to merge profile data and convert from profraw to profdata format 4) uses llvm::IndexedInstrProfReader to read-in

Dario Domizioli <dario.domizioli at gmail.com> writes: > Hi Diego, > > thanks for clarifying the difference between the two formats. I have noticed > the new note in the "Sample Profile Format" section of the Clang guide > clarifying that it is different from the coverage format. > > So, my further question is... Am I right in understanding that both formats

Hi Diego, thanks for clarifying the difference between the two formats. I have noticed the new note in the "Sample Profile Format" section of the Clang guide clarifying that it is different from the coverage format. So, my further question is... Am I right in understanding that both formats can be used for PGO purposes then? I have tried the following, as in the Clang user guide: $

Hi I encountered this problem a few times in the past, but only now it is consistent enough so I can write this email. In short, the problem is that after I copy some structure from the profiled program to the dtrace space, and set a "this-dataP" variable to point to the local copy, after a while some of the fields of the local structure are overridden with junk values. In

> > I think it is reasonable to simply replace the key we currently use with > MD5(key) for getting a size reduction. In practice for my use cases, I have > not observed any of the issues you mentioned under "Large size of overhead > can limit the usability of PGO greatly", but I can understand that some of > these issues could become problems in Google's use case.

We are trying to get PGO working for our embedded out-of-tree target, but the utility 'llvm-profdata' does not like the data we are giving it. Because this is not a hosted environment, we have to off-chip the profiling data ourselves, and although the data looks okay, 'llvm-profdata' reports the following error: llvm-profdata show -all-functions -counts -detailed-summary -text