similar to: Using source-based code coverage on baremetal

I think that this proposal would be very useful, and I will describe our experiences of trying to do this for our embedded bare-metal target. Recently we implemented support for just the '-fprofile-instr-generate' option and the 'compiler-rt/lib/profile' sources, and added the following to our LD scripts: /* Append the LLVM profiling sections */ . = ALIGN(4);

Hi I'm referencing the method: Lib/Transforms/Instrumentation/InstrProfiling.cpp:InstrProfiling::lowerCoverageData() At the end of the function, why is the variable being placed in __llvm_prf_names section? Shouldn't it be placed in __llvm_covmap section? Thanks Ali -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

> > FWIW, I build baremetal newlib for arm-eabi using clang, and it works. I >> had to patch a few of the __attribute__((naked)) functions because they >> were using pre-UAL asm syntax, but for the most part it "just works". >> > I build the baremetal newlib using arm-none-eabi-gcc as well, but after linking with the hello world program, it failed to run on

With llc, the size of the names section can vary widely depending on the value of -DLLVM_TARGETS_TO_BUILD. Enabling coverage shouldn't increase the name section size much. I only see one place where this happens, and it's relatively cold: http://lab.llvm.org:8080/coverage/coverage-reports/llvm/coverage/Users/buildslave/jenkins/sharedspace/clang-stage2-coverage-R at

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

Kostya Serebryany <kcc at google.com> writes: > Justin, > Calling appendToUsed has horrible complexity and if we call it in > every function clang consumes tons of memory (6Gb when compiling one > of the clang's source files). This killed my machine today :) > > The solution is to call appendToUsed once per module, instead of once > per function. Oh right,

On 12/16/14 3:53 AM, Kristof Beyls wrote: > I've been wondering too about how to get better ARM v6m compile-and-execute > testing going. > > As you say Jon, the non-execution-based regression tests are surprisingly > good at catching issues; but they're no full substitute for executing the > code produced by the backend for a reasonably-sized test suite. > > If

Hello, Our goals for the code coverage BoF (10/19) were to find areas where we can improve the coverage tooling, and to learn more about how coverage is used. I'd like to thank all of the attendees for their input and for making the BoF productive. Special thanks to Mandeep Grang, who volunteered as a mic runner at the last minute. In this email I'll share my (rough) notes and outline

I had an old build of llc with FE instrumentation, the name section size is about 5MB. Using coverage is likely to cause the name section to be larger as there are more references to dead/unused function names. What do you see when readelf --string-dump=__llvm_prf_names llc David On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 2:23 PM, Xinliang David Li <davidxl at google.com> wrote: > > > On Tue,

Hello, as a newbee, I'd appreciate some support on regression test setup. Specifically, I am interrested in the feature of tail call optimizations for the ARM v6m targets. This feature currently seems to be completely deactivated at the moment (v6m being based on thumb1 ?!). According to my code-reading, this feature will involve some modifications in epilogue generation. My work on a gcc

On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 6:30 PM, Justin Bogner <mail at justinbogner.com> wrote: > Peter Collingbourne <peter at pcc.me.uk> writes: > > On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 3:38 PM, Kostya Serebryany <kcc at google.com> > wrote: > > > >> > >> > >> On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 3:35 PM, Peter Collingbourne <peter at pcc.me.uk> > >> wrote:

Hi Dean, We didn't discuss using XRay instrumentation during the BoF but it is an interesting idea (by the way, thanks for your talk about XRay internals!). XRay provides the advantage of being able to turn profiling on and off, but I'm not sure how the resulting data could be used. The code coverage feature is highly dependent on the frontend's profile counter placement. The mapping

Hi, I followed two posts as my guideline http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2017-September/117339.html and http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2017-September/117156.html I am using clang 4.0.1 and compiler-rt 4.0 release 1. I made changes in the LCF to mimic Linux Platform (for linker magic) In data section i have added: __start___llvm_prf_cnts = .;

lld does not seem to create the __start and __end symbols for orphan sections. I would like to keep my linker script as generic as possible so how can I tell lld to create these symbols without having to add them in the linker script? Thanks A -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

[+llvmdev, -llvm-dev] (Oopsies, llvmdev doesn't have a hyphen in it like all the others do) On 6/17/14, 10:45 AM, Jonathan Roelofs wrote: > [+llvm-dev, cfe-dev] > > Was "Re: [PATCH] ARM: allow inline atomics on Cortex M" > > On 6/17/14, 10:42 AM, Jonathan Roelofs wrote: >> >> >> On 6/17/14, 9:35 AM, Renato Golin wrote: >>> On 17 June 2014

On Fri, Aug 04, 2017 at 04:40:44PM -0600, Jonathan Roelofs wrote: > Might be a helpful exercise for you to try building vanilla clang with > runtimes for the host, before worrying about how to build everything for > your baremetal case: > http://llvm.org/docs/GettingStarted.html#getting-started-quickly-a-summary So I did. :o) It was fun realizing how much Release type reduces LD

You are right it creates them but sets the protected flag (STV_PROTECTED) which seems to be the cause of my problem. How can I tell it to set the flag as STV_DEFAULT? Thanks A On 5/28/20, 11:30 PM, "Fangrui Song" <maskray at google.com> wrote: NetApp Security WARNING: This is an external email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know

I would enable ksmtuned logging ,if it has been done verify logs ________________________________ From: centos-virt-bounces at centos.org <centos-virt-bounces at centos.org> on behalf of Laurentiu Soica <laurentiu at soica.ro> Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2016 7:16 AM To: Discussion about the virtualization on CentOS Subject: Re: [CentOS-virt] Nested KVM issue Yes. It is on both

It sounds weird, but attempt to disable KSM and see would it help or no ? ________________________________ From: centos-virt-bounces at centos.org <centos-virt-bounces at centos.org> on behalf of Laurentiu Soica <laurentiu at soica.ro> Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2016 4:56 AM To: Discussion about the virtualization on CentOS Subject: Re: [CentOS-virt] Nested KVM issue Enabled the

Is KSM enabled on your Compute Nodes ( presuming CentOS 7.2 on bare metal ) ? ________________________________ From: centos-virt-bounces at centos.org <centos-virt-bounces at centos.org> on behalf of Laurentiu Soica <laurentiu at soica.ro> Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2016 5:25 AM To: Discussion about the virtualization on CentOS Subject: Re: [CentOS-virt] Nested KVM issue Running the