similar to: Debugify and Verify-each mode

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

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 ? > >

> 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 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);

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 { >

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. +

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,

Hi Vedant, Thanks for your reply. More comments inline. Son Tuan Vu On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 10:19 PM, Vedant Kumar <vsk at apple.com> wrote: > Hi, > > + Chandler, who has a lot more experience with our pass managers. > > On Apr 20, 2018, at 12:56 PM, Son Tuan VU <sontuan.vu119 at gmail.com> wrote: > > + Vedant: what do you think about the last point, since

+ Vedant: what do you think about the last point, since Debugify is also related? Son Tuan Vu On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 6:14 PM, Philip Pfaffe <philip.pfaffe at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Son, > > PassManagerBuilder is used to populate legacy PassManagers. That role is > taken over by PassBuilder for new-PM passes. > > Cheers, > Philip > > 2018-04-18 13:40 GMT+02:00

> On Apr 20, 2018, at 1:46 PM, Son Tuan VU <sontuan.vu119 at gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Vedant, > > Thanks for your reply. More comments inline. > > Son Tuan Vu > > On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 10:19 PM, Vedant Kumar <vsk at apple.com <mailto:vsk at apple.com>> wrote: > Hi, > > + Chandler, who has a lot more experience with our pass managers.

Hi, + Chandler, who has a lot more experience with our pass managers. > On Apr 20, 2018, at 12:56 PM, Son Tuan VU <sontuan.vu119 at gmail.com> wrote: > > + Vedant: what do you think about the last point, since Debugify is also related? Could you clarify the question? I'm not sure what it is you'd like me to chime in about. > 2, I've asked this question once but

Hello Paul, François and Vedant, Thank you all for your answers. And sorry for this late reply. I wanted to dig more into the LLVM source code to get a better understanding of the debug part of it before replying/asking more questions. I have came across this https://llvm.org/docs/SourceLevelDebugging.html#debugging-optimized-code which stated that "*Basically, the debug information allows

Hi, I'm not sure which passes exactly drop debug info, but it's likely that most of them do. If you're interested in working on this problem, I suggest experimenting with the debugify utility in opt. This tool can be used to identify passes which drop debug info and to generate targeted/reduced test cases for specific problems. To use it, you can add the '-enable-debugify'

Hello all, I came across the code of Verifier, and see that it doesn't modify the IR at all. Why it is not considered as an analysis pass? Actually, this will have impact on debugify-each and print-before/after-all: we are not supposed to print/debugify Verifier pass, but since Verifier is declared as a transformation (well, a non-analysis) pass, we actually do print/debugify it. Thanks for

Hi Philip, Thank you for your reply. So what would be the right way/API to write out-of-tree pass? I've been using *PassManagerBuilder*, which requires a callback refering to *legacy::PassManagerBase*, so I guess this will be no longer the good way to go? Son Tuan Vu On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 6:06 PM, Philip Pfaffe <philip.pfaffe at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Son, > > I have an

Hello, Has anyone taken a look at this bug? I really want to fix this, but as Paul pointed out, this requires a lot of care... Thank you for your help Son Tuan Vu On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 7:29 PM, Son Tuan VU <sontuan.vu119 at gmail.com> wrote: > Thank you all for taking a look at this. I pasted the C source then > deleted it because I was afraid that it was too long to read...

Hi Son, PassManagerBuilder is used to populate legacy PassManagers. That role is taken over by PassBuilder for new-PM passes. Cheers, Philip 2018-04-18 13:40 GMT+02:00 Son Tuan VU <sontuan.vu119 at gmail.com>: > Hi Philip, > > Thank you for your reply. So what would be the right way/API to write > out-of-tree pass? I've been using *PassManagerBuilder*, which requires a

My experience is that just running mem2reg (while disabling virtually all other passes ) in O1 will substantially improve debuggability while giving acceptable performance. On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 11:39 AM, via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > (Remembering to +llvm-dev this time…) > > > > There has been some progress in the direction of improving debuggability

Could you file a bug report about this (bugs.llvm.org <http://bugs.llvm.org/>)? If you don't have an account on bugzilla, I'd be happy to file one for you. Please provide exact instructions to reproduce the issue including any compilation flags. thanks, vedant > On May 7, 2018, at 9:16 AM, Son Tuan VU <sontuan.vu119 at gmail.com> wrote: > > Hello, > > Has

As Adrian said, we'd need to see the source of foo() to assess what the location-list for bar ought to be. Without actually going to look, I would guess that 'poplt' is considered a conditional move, therefore r4's contents are not guaranteed after it executes (i.e. it is a clobber). If one operand of 'poplt' is 'pc' then of course it is also a conditional indirect