similar to: Xray Instrumentation FreeBSD

Hi dear FreeBSD support, The turn of MemorySanitizer to get early support into FreeBSD. Kind regards. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20180303/253c2a4f/attachment.html>

Hi all, I was interested in trying out the Xray profiling component in LLVM and was trying to compile a C program with Clang with Xray flags. Unfortunately, I keep getting a linker error everytime I try to compile the C program with Clang. However, the error goes away when I try to compile the same C program with Clang++ with -xc++ flag. Searching around for this issue, looks like somebody has

# Objective Implement an XRay mode 'xray-profiling' that gathers stack trace latencies/durations and builds histograms to provide basic statistics about where time is going in an execution of the application. # Background XRay has two modes currently implemented in compiler-rt: a basic (nee naive) mode and flight data recorder (FDR) mode. Basic mode logging, when enabled, will collect

Hi, The following three patches, when applied cleanly to LLVM+Clang+compiler-rt will now allow for building and running binaries with a very simple version of XRay included: http://reviews.llvm.org/D21612 (compiler-rt) http://reviews.llvm.org/D20352 (clang) http://reviews.llvm.org/D19904 (llvm) To use this on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu you'd need to set the flags '-fxray-instrument'

Hello, There seems to be a bug with the value of the thread ID (TID) that is generated by XRay when calling fork(). The value of the TID of the child has the same TID as its parent (this is seen in the “thread: “ field of the YAML output produced by the llvm-xray tool). This is a problem as the trace generated contains the same TID for the parent and children processes, making it difficult to

On Mon, Jan 7, 2019 at 3:21 PM Dean Michael Berris <dean.berris at gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Jan 7, 2019 at 8:43 PM Dangeti Tharun kumar > <cs15mtech11002 at iith.ac.in> wrote: > > > > Hi Dean, > > > > I have tried with -instr-map-1 and -instr-map-2, it didn't work. > > > > Yeah, I'm looking through the code and it looks like

On 03.03.2018 13:10, David CARLIER via llvm-dev wrote: > Hi dear FreeBSD support, > > The turn of MemorySanitizer to get early support into FreeBSD. > > Kind regards. > I recommend to fix the failures in existing tests. Next enable MSan for sanitizer-common tests and fix the breaking tests on FreeBSD. How about TSan? -------------- next part -------------- A non-text

Hi everyone, TL;DR: With current pending patches applied in compiler-rt and llvm, and trunk clang, you can build your application with XRay tracing enabled on Linux with tracing enabled before main starts, and logging stops when the main thread exits. Just a quick update, I have some patches under review that when applied cleanly to LLVM and compiler-rt allows for building applications with XRay

Hi Dean/Serge, I just spotted this on our bots: First failure, unrelated commit: http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/clang-cmake-armv7-a15-full/builds/3190 'XRay-Unit :: unit/XRayFDRLoggingTest/FDRLoggingTest.Simple' FAILED llvm/projects/compiler-rt/lib/xray/tests/unit/fdr_logging_test.cc:55: Failure Expected: FDRLogging_init(kBufferSize, kBufferMax, &Options,

Hi Dean, I haven't looked very closely at XRay so far, but I'm wondering if making CTF (common trace format, e.g. see http://diamon.org/ctf/) the default format for XRay traces would be useful? It seems it'd be nice to be able to reuse some of the tools that already exist for CTF, such as a graphical viewer (http://tracecompass.org/) or a converter library

> On 20 Jul 2016, at 20:02, C Bergström <cbergstrom at pathscale.com> wrote: > > Some general questions about X-Ray > ------------- > Is there a plan to make a separate mailing list or project around > this? Do you have a list of planned features? Interesting question -- so far we haven't decided yet whether XRay will live as another project. I'm certainly open to

Hi cfe-dev@ and llvm-dev@, I've attached a Chrome trace-viewer readable trace of a clang built with XRay instrumentation (additional build/link flags="-fxray-instrument -fxray-instruction-threshold=75") with the latest "top-of-trunk" version of clang with the recent updates to the XRay runtime supporting record filtering. To load the attached file, go to

I see. Thanks for clarifying. I'm Ok with merging these if Dean agrees, as I believe he's the code owner. Thanks, Hans On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 11:47 AM, Serge Rogatch <serge.rogatch at gmail.com> wrote: > There were no LLVM tests for presence of XRay instrumentation map in the > emitted assembly. You can see that https://reviews.llvm.org/D28624 adds this > check to the

I'm wondering why the lit tests didn't catch this as part of testing rc1 on ARM. On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 11:25 AM, Serge Rogatch <serge.rogatch at gmail.com> wrote: > XRay is tested automatically on build-bots with tests in LLVM and > compiler-rt . Or are you asking for manual testing instructions? > Of these 2 patches, the compiler-rt patch depends on LLVM patch because

Sorry, I initially included LLVM-Commits rather than LLVM-Dev. Fixed. On 26 January 2017 at 03:26, Serge Rogatch <serge.rogatch at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Dean, Renato, > > AFAIK, unfortunately, these critical Arm32 XRay fixes are not yet in 4.0: > https://reviews.llvm.org/D28624 , https://reviews.llvm.org/D28623 . The > first repairs XRay instrumentation map emission.

So I stumbled across an issue that I think is a bit fundamental: The xray runtime uses the C++ standard library. This seems like a problem because whatever C++ standard library is used to compile the XRay runtime may not be the same as the C++ standard library (if any) that is used to build the target application and link XRay into. Does this make sense? Is this a problem? Talking to Chandler

Sent from my iPhone > On 6 Dec 2017, at 4:17 am, Brian Cain <brian.cain at gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 9:49 AM, Dean Michael Berris via cfe-dev <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> Hi cfe-dev@ and llvm-dev@, >> >> I've attached a Chrome trace-viewer readable trace of a clang built with XRay instrumentation (additional

How is XRay tested? IIRC, Renato didn't see any test failures on ARM? Merging sounds reasonbaly, I'd just like to understand what's the risk for the branch. On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 10:29 AM, Serge Rogatch <serge.rogatch at gmail.com> wrote: > Hans, these changes reached trunk in https://reviews.llvm.org/rL292516 and > https://reviews.llvm.org/rL292517 . Could you look?

FYI: Patch is now available for review in https://reviews.llvm.org/D44620. On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 1:34 PM Dean Michael Berris <dean.berris at gmail.com> wrote: > # Objective > > Implement an XRay mode 'xray-profiling' that gathers stack trace > latencies/durations and builds histograms to provide basic statistics about > where time is going in an execution of the

Hi llvm-dev, I've been implementing a tool for analysing XRay traces. A recap of XRay's original RFC [0] mentions a tool that does function call accounting as a starting point. This is implemented currently in D21987 [1], and is being reviewed by David Blaikie. One key issue in that review is the dependency between the log format determined by the XRay runtime implementation in