similar to: reviving LLVM on Solaris x86/SPARC platform

On 03/15/2018 01:32 PM, Fedor Sergeev via llvm-dev wrote: > For this to be really usable in this setup we need additionally to: >   - extend -print-module-scope to cover basic block passes >   - introduce a clear way to separate module IRs as those are being > printed by -print-after-all > > But yes, it should work, and a wrapper that pipes to git fast-import > seems to be

Does git-commit-after-all print correctly after all the passes? Maybe I messed it up and it skip some passes, therefore having less to do? Either that, or piping has a higher cost than writing to file. Looks like it surprisingly spends much less time in system more when going through file. Maybe that's because the file is consistently around the same size and is mmapped into memory

The print-module-after-all type of option exists in upstream: -print-module-scope - When printing IR for print-[before|after]{-all} always print a module IR commit 7d160f714357f6784ead669ce516e94991c12e5a Author: Fedor Sergeev <fedor.sergeev at azul.com<mailto:fedor.sergeev at azul.com>> Date: Fri Dec 1 17:42:46 2017 +0000 IR

Is there a reason for why `-asan` and `-asan-module` can be mixed but Function passes and Module passes with the new PM can't be mixed? - Leo On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 3:21 AM Fedor Sergeev <fedor.sergeev at azul.com> wrote: > > On 09/27/2018 12:25 PM, Philip Pfaffe wrote: >> >> `opt < %s -passed='asan' -asan-module -S` > > asan-module is another

Hello Fedor. Thank you for the information. I made a simple patch that exposes PassInstrumentationCallback so llvmGetPassPluginInfo can use it: https://reviews.llvm.org/D71086 . Would this change make sense? Thanks, Juneyoung Lee On Thu, Dec 12, 2019 at 12:44 AM Fedor Sergeev <fedor.sergeev at azul.com> wrote: > > > On 12/3/19 8:01 PM, Juneyoung Lee via llvm-dev wrote: > >

Hmm... I tried Alexandre's fix from D44244 and surprisingly it appears that just using -print-module-scope w/o any additional git actions is waaaay slower on my testcase than -git-commit-module-all. Hell, even a plan -print-after-all is slower:  ] time R/bin/opt -O3 some-ir.ll -disable-output -git-commit-after-all 2>/dev/null real    0m8.041s user    0m7.133s sys     0m0.936s ] time

For this to be really usable in this setup we need additionally to:   - extend -print-module-scope to cover basic block passes   - introduce a clear way to separate module IRs as those are being printed by -print-after-all But yes, it should work, and a wrapper that pipes to git fast-import seems to be the best way to handle it. regards,   Fedor. On 03/15/2018 12:31 AM, Daniel Neilson via

Does https://reviews.llvm.org/D44132 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D44132> help at all? > On 15 Mar 2018, at 09:16, Philip Reames via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > The most likely answer is that the printer used by print-after-all is slow. I know there were some changes made around passing in some form of state cache (metadata related?) and that running

git-commit-after-all solution has one serious issue - it has a hardcoded git handling which makes it look problematic from many angles (picking a proper git, selecting exact way of storing information, creating repository, replacing the file etc etc). Just dumping information in a way that allows easy subsequent machine processing seems to be a more flexible, less cluttered and overall clean

Huh. Great! 😁 I don't believe my poor excuse from earlier (else we should map all pipes into files!), but I'm curious why we spend less time in system mode when going through file than pipe. Maybe /dev/null is not as efficient as we might think? I can't believe I'm saying that... On Thu, Mar 15, 2018, 08:25 Fedor Sergeev <fedor.sergeev at azul.com> wrote: > Well, git by

Overall seems fine to me. On 3/11/19 8:12 PM, Hiroshi Yamauchi wrote: > Here's a revised approach based on the discussion: > > - Cache PSI right after the profile summary in the IR is written in > the pass pipeline. This would avoid the need to insert > RequireAnalysisPass for PSI before each non-module pass that needs it. > PSI can be technically invalidated but unlikely

Frontends _are_ using PassBuilder, but they need to hook into the default pipeline creation to insert the sanitizer passes. On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 12:15 PM Fedor Sergeev <fedor.sergeev at azul.com> wrote: > Hmm... frontends should be using PassBuilder anyway. > And if they are using PassBuilder then they are using PassRegistry.def as > well - all the >

On 8/6/19 7:31 PM, Fedor Sergeev via llvm-dev wrote: > > > On 8/6/19 3:02 AM, Hiroshi Yamauchi via llvm-dev wrote: >> I had a chance to try -print-after-all with NPM. >> >> It seems like there's still no output for the passes >> before objc-arc-contract (which is basically what I saw before.) Does >> anyone else see this? >> >> Are we

On 8/7/19 6:20 PM, Hiroshi Yamauchi wrote: > I basically run "clang > -fexperimental-new-pass-manager -print-after-all ..." > > It's conceivable that something is different in our setup or in clang > (from opt)... I'll see if I can reproduce it outside our setup. Does it depend on machine architecture? I generally use x86... regards,   Fedor. > > Thanks.

But they're deeply connected. I debug codegen problems all the time. That opt-bisect doesn't work with codegen is really unfortunate. If opt-bisect should work with codegen then we need to think about how codegen will work with the new PM. I agree that whether or not the new PM becomes default is somewhat orthogonal but eventually it will and at that point I hope we have a functioning

Oh, well... as usually the answer appears to be pretty obvious. 99% of the time is spent inside the plain write. -print-after-all prints into llvm::errs(), which is an *unbuffered* raw_fd_stream. And -git-commit-after-all opens a *buffered* raw_fd_stream. As soon as I hacked -print-after-all to use a buffered stream to stderr performance went up to the normal expected values: ] time bin/opt

Fedor, Yes that is what happens in my case that the loop is fully unrolled and hence ‘removed’. My objection though is that there is still IR that could be dumped (i.e. the function containing the loop that was removed or the entire module) and that is what I want to have dumped after each pass when I specify -print-after-all. Of course there may be certain implementation details that could make

On 3/14/19 2:04 AM, Hiroshi Yamauchi wrote: > > > On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 2:37 PM Fedor Sergeev <fedor.sergeev at azul.com > <mailto:fedor.sergeev at azul.com>> wrote: > >> >> - Add a new proxy ModuleAnalysisManagerLoopProxy for a loop pass >> to be able to get to the ModuleAnalysisManager in one step and >> PSI through it. >

If this is faster than -print-after-all we may actually consider pushing that in the code base then? (after diligent code review of course) Note that it uses the same printing method as -print-after-all: - create a pass of the same pass kind as the pass we just ran - use Module::print(raw_ostream) to print (except -print-after-all only print the concerned part and into stdout) If there is

On 03/16/2018 01:21 AM, Fedor Sergeev via llvm-dev wrote: > git-commit-after-all solution has one serious issue - it has a hardcoded git handling which > makes it look problematic from many angles (picking a proper git, > selecting exact way of storing information, creating repository, replacing the file etc etc). > > Just dumping information in a way that allows easy