similar to: [LLVMdev] getting all def-uses

On Sun, 16 Jan 2005, Sriraman Tallam wrote: > I want to get all the d-u pairs exercised at run-time. I am doing > two things for this. I am useing the d-u iterator to instrument all uses. > I also want to get an address trace. What are the instructions I should > insttrument. Is load and store sufficient. Also, how do I go abt doing > this ? Hi Sriraman, If you are looking for

Thanks Chris. Yes that was what I was looking for. -Sriraman. On Sun, 16 Jan 2005, Chris Lattner wrote: > On Sun, 16 Jan 2005, Sriraman Tallam wrote: > > > I want to get all the d-u pairs exercised at run-time. I am doing > > two things for this. I am useing the d-u iterator to instrument all uses. > > I also want to get an address trace. What are the instructions I

On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 1:27 PM Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 12:31 PM Sriraman Tallam <tmsriram at google.com> > wrote: > > > > > > > > On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 12:26 PM Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com> > wrote: > >> > >> On Sat, Sep 28, 2019 at 8:25 AM Sriraman Tallam

I guess Eric means full program optimization/cross module optimization using MIR. This is in theory workable in full LTO style, but not in ThinLTO style which works on summary data. As we have discussed, eliminating monolithic style optimization is the key design goal. This was also briefly discussed in one of the previous replies I sent. There are other benefits of doing this in linker such

On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 12:26 PM Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, Sep 28, 2019 at 8:25 AM Sriraman Tallam <tmsriram at google.com> > wrote: > > > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 10:36 PM Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com> > wrote: > >> > >> On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 2:08 PM Sriraman Tallam via

Some more information about the relaxation pass whose effectiveness and convergence guarantees were listed as a concern: TLDR; Our relaxation pass is similar to what LLVM’s MCAssembler does but with a caveat for efficiency. Our experimental results show it is efficient and convergence is guaranteed. Our relaxation pass is very similar to what MCAssembler does as it needs to solve the same

On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 10:36 PM Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 2:08 PM Sriraman Tallam via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 1:16 PM Eli Friedman <efriedma at quicinc.com> > wrote: > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From:

On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 5:13 PM Eli Friedman <efriedma at quicinc.com> wrote: > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Sriraman Tallam <tmsriram at google.com> > > Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2019 3:24 PM > > To: Eli Friedman <efriedma at quicinc.com> > > Cc: Xinliang David Li <xinliangli at gmail.com>; llvm-dev <llvm-dev at

Constant *strcon==ConstantArray::get("Value : %d\n"); Sorry Typo. On Tue, 21 Dec 2004, Misha Brukman wrote: > On Tue, Dec 21, 2004 at 03:45:33PM -0700, Sriraman Tallam wrote: > > I have this call instruction to printf inserted which is causing > > an assertion failure. Any pointers to where I am wrong : > > > > Function

On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 1:16 PM Eli Friedman <efriedma at quicinc.com> wrote: > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Sriraman Tallam <tmsriram at google.com> > > Sent: Friday, September 27, 2019 9:43 AM > > To: Eli Friedman <efriedma at quicinc.com> > > Cc: Xinliang David Li <xinliangli at gmail.com>; llvm-dev <llvm-dev at

We would also like to clarify on the misconceptions around CFI Instructions: There are two things that need to be clarified here: 1) Extra CFI FDE entries for basic blocks does not mean more dynamic instructions are executed. In fact, they do not increase at all. Krys talked about this earlier. 2) We do deduplication of common static CFI instructions in the FDE and move it to the CIE . Hence,

On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 12:39 PM Eli Friedman <efriedma at quicinc.com> wrote: > > > > From: Xinliang David Li <xinliangli at gmail.com> > Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2019 5:58 PM > To: Eli Friedman <efriedma at quicinc.com> > Cc: Sriraman Tallam <tmsriram at google.com>; llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> > Subject: [EXT] Re: [llvm-dev]

On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 6:16 PM Eli Friedman <efriedma at quicinc.com> wrote: > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Sriraman Tallam <tmsriram at google.com> > > Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2019 5:31 PM > > To: Eli Friedman <efriedma at quicinc.com> > > Cc: Xinliang David Li <xinliangli at gmail.com>; llvm-dev <llvm-dev at

Hi, i ran the insert-function-profiling pass on my bytecode and when i jit it, i get ' cant resolve 'llvm_start_func_profiling'. How do I link the "instrument" library. ? Thanks -Sriraman.

We are going to be at the llvm-dev meeting the next two days. We will get back to you after that. Sri On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 10:07 PM Maksim Panchenko <maks at fb.com> wrote: > Hi Sri, > > > > Thank you for replying to our feedback. 7 out 12 high-level concerns have > been > > answered; 2 of them are fully addressed. The rest are being tracked at the > >

Hi, I have a quick question. Can you tell me how to avoid simple functions getting inlined for 'C' programs ? I am using LLVM 1.2 . Thanks -Sriraman.

Hello Maksim, On Fri, Oct 18, 2019 at 10:57 AM Maksim Panchenko <maks at fb.com> wrote: > Cool. The new numbers look good. If you run BOLT with jemalloc library > > preloaded, you will likely get a runtime closer to 1 minute. We’ve noticed > that > > compared to the default malloc, it improves the multithreaded > > performance and brings down memory usage

On Tue, Dec 21, 2004 at 03:45:33PM -0700, Sriraman Tallam wrote: > I have this call instruction to printf inserted which is causing > an assertion failure. Any pointers to where I am wrong : > > Function *printFn=M.getNamedFunction(std::string("printf")); std::string() is unnecessary here as it's implicit. > Constant *str=ConstantArray::get("Value :

On Tue, Dec 21, 2004 at 03:53:47PM -0700, Sriraman Tallam wrote: > Constant *strcon==ConstantArray::get("Value : %d\n"); OK, then what's the assertion? You can also see the resulting module by using -disable-verify: $ opt -yourpass -disable-verify < file.bc | llvm-dis You may see what the problem is by looking at the LLVM assembly. -- Misha Brukman ::

Hi, I have this call instruction to printf inserted which is causing an assertion failure. Any pointers to where I am wrong : Code Dump : Function *printFn=M.getNamedFunction(std::string("printf")); Constant *str=ConstantArray::get("Value : %d\n"); std::vector<Value *> Args(2); std::vector<Constant *> GEPIndices(2);