similar to: [GSoC 2018] Improve Debugging of Optimized Code

Welcome Anastasis! I'm very happy to see this work going forward. I see that your first task is to make "debugify" into a function pass, so we will be able to get data on a per-pass basis. At EuroLLVM there was a relevant lightning talk about a different tool, see: http://llvm.org/devmtg/2018-04/talks.html#Lightning_11 It will be extremely interesting to see how well your results

Hi Anastasis, Welcome, and congratulations! It's great to see that you're maintaining a devlog and have hit the ground running. I'm looking forward to working with you. > On Apr 25, 2018, at 12:56 PM, via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Welcome Anastasis! I'm very happy to see this work going forward. > > I see that your first task is to

Hello, I'm an undergraduate student in the CS department of Aristotle University of Thessaloniki (AUTh). Last year I successfully completed GSoC with Mixxx [1] and this year I would like to work on LLVM. I am interested in "Improving debugging of optimized code" [2]. I have gone through the kaleidoscope tutorial and I've set up a basic dev environment for LLVM and clang.

Hello, I submitted a draft proposal at the gsoc website. You can see the application in the attached pdf. Any feedback is welcome. thanks, Anastasis -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: GSoC2018_llvm_application.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 41454 bytes Desc: not available URL:

Thanks Anastasis. This proposal looks good to me, this is great work. @all, here is a link to the project description: https://llvm.org/OpenProjects.html#llvm_optimized_debugging Davide (CC'd) and I will be available as mentors. I'd be happy to help answer any questions/concerns about this project. vedant > On Mar 16, 2018, at 11:07 AM, Anast Gramm <anastasis.gramm2 at

FWIW, I've raised the LICM issue here: https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=37682 On 31 May 2018 at 13:28, Anast Gramm <anastasis.gramm2 at gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks, > These are very helpful. > > As I understand it, SROA and LICM render some variables > "useless" by optimizing the code to not use them. Hence we can't debug > them. > >

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 { >

Many DI-related bugs are caused by missing Debug Location in an instruction created in a transformation. Most of the time the fix is trivial once you found where the culprit instruction is created (https://reviews.llvm.org/D50263). Currently, when you create a new Instruction, in order to give it DL you have to either use an IRBuilder that is previously set to the correct DL or “manually” create

Introduction ============ `SROA' is an early stage pass running at the very beginning of the pipeline in `-O{1,2,3}'. Greg Bedwell's report from his DExTer tool shows SROA on function as one of the major culprits of Debug Info loss. With debugify-each partially done I tried testing this on the amalgamated sqlite source. The steps are as follows: ,---- | # generate

> That is good to hear / expected, since we went though great lengths to ensure that SROA preserves variable debug info. > > Have you looked at the location-less phi instructions? > Does empty mean line 0 or do you mean they have no debug location whatsoever? Most of them have line 0, only 12 are locationless. > Are they empty for good reasons or does it look more like an

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);

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 ? > >

Hello, @Anastasis: what do you think about this? Do you mind if I implement the debugify-each mode and refactor the code to have DebugifyFunctionPass and DebugifyLoopPass? I am sorry if it bothers you, I should have done this earlier, so you could focus on fixing the optimization passes. FYI, my debugify-each is quite ready, I am having Debugify and CheckDebugify before and after each ModulePass,

> > is in the business of deciding, but it does score it as a difference > because it now, at no point, sees the expression "first" evaluate to a > value of 5, or "total" to a value of 8 which it did previously. From the > source-level debugging experience, the variables now just get updated > between iterations. > Obviously should've been 7 for that

> On May 30, 2018, at 8:37 AM, Anast Gramm <anastasis.gramm2 at gmail.com> wrote: > > Introduction > ============ > > `SROA' is an early stage pass running at the very beginning of the > pipeline in `-O{1,2,3}'. Greg Bedwell's report from his DExTer tool > shows SROA on function as one of the major culprits of Debug Info > loss. > > With

Hi Vedant, hi all, My goal is to measure debug info loss of *each* optimization pass in LLVM. I am trying to create a debugify-each mode in opt, inspired by verify-each mode which is supposed to already work. However, if I understand correctly, the verify-each mode (triggered by -verify-each option in opt) only works when we provide a pass list or a pass pipeline. Is this intended? I mean, why

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

> 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.

Hi Son Tuan, Thanks for taking a look at this :). Responses inline -- > On Mar 14, 2018, at 8:11 AM, Son Tuan VU <sontuan.vu119 at gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Vedant, hi all, > > My goal is to measure debug info loss of each optimization pass in LLVM. I am trying to create a debugify-each mode in opt, inspired by verify-each mode which is supposed to already work. +

Hi all, I am running samba 3.0.6 on Linux and am wondering if anyone knows if it is possible to delete a print driver from the driver database? I have around 20 printers running off of this print server and occasionally we remove all of a certain type of printer. Also, for some reason, the drivers sometimes seem to become corrupt and it would be nice to be able to entirely remove a driver and