similar to: [LLVMdev] Run-time optimization using profile data

On Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 12:12 PM, madiyaan <ahmadsharif at hotmail.com> wrote: > Hello: > > I am new to llvm. I am looking for an example somewhere, or a > walkthrough/guide on how to do runtime optimization using llvm. Ideally, I > would like to: > > 1. Compile the program from C to LLVM or native with LLVM information > embedded in the binary. > 2. Run the binary

Thanks for your message. However, even with using version 2.5 of llvm the function is not inlined. Can you try this with your llvm with the same opt flags, which are as follows? -O3 -debug-only=inline -mem2reg If it does work for you, can you tell me the exact flags you used for clang or llvm-gcc to produce the .bc file and the exact flags you specified when you invoked opt? Does the inlining

I just located a concurrency error in my LLVM patch to add locks to the JIT. I did not add any locks to the JITResolver class in JITEmitter.cpp, which clearly is a problem since This particular issue causes an assertion failure on occasion when running a task that spawns threads on a parallel machine. Any recommendations about if I am doing something that seems horribly wrong are welcome. I'll

Apple folks are also gearing up to push on the PGO front. We are primarily interested in using instrumentation, rather than sampling, to collect profile info. However, I suspect the way profile ended up being used in the various optimization and codegen passes would be largely similar. There is also some interests in pursuing profile directed specialization. But that can wait. I think it makes

> > After the basic profile-based transformations are working, I would like to > add new sources of profile. Mainly, I am thinking of implementing Auto > FDO. > For those who are not familiar with what autoFDO is -- Auto FDO is originally called Sample Based FDO. Its main author is Dehao Chen @google, and Robert Hundt is the one of the main pushers of technology in Google. The

On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 11:19 AM, Bob Wilson <bob.wilson at apple.com> wrote: > > On Jun 17, 2013, at 6:54 AM, Diego Novillo <dnovillo at google.com> wrote: > >> On 2013-06-15 14:18 , Evan Cheng wrote: >>> Apple folks are also gearing up to push on the PGO front. We are primarily interested in using instrumentation, rather than sampling, to collect profile info.

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005, Evan Jones wrote: > I just located a concurrency error in my LLVM patch to add locks to the > JIT. I did not add any locks to the JITResolver class in JITEmitter.cpp, > which clearly is a problem since This particular issue causes an > assertion failure on occasion when running a task that spawns threads on > a parallel machine. Any recommendations about if I am

On Jun 17, 2013, at 6:54 AM, Diego Novillo <dnovillo at google.com> wrote: > On 2013-06-15 14:18 , Evan Cheng wrote: >> Apple folks are also gearing up to push on the PGO front. We are primarily interested in using instrumentation, rather than sampling, to collect profile info. However, I suspect the way profile ended up being used in the various optimization and codegen passes

The patch I recently attached to bug 2606, reproduced here, is my first attempt to solve this issue as represented by the attached test cases. To solve the foreign Module GlobalVariable problem, I modified JIT::getOrEmitGlobalVariable(...) to directly attempt to map a found "external" GlobalVariable. To solve the foreign Module Function problem, I modified both JIT.{h,cpp} and

On 2013-06-15 14:18 , Evan Cheng wrote: > Apple folks are also gearing up to push on the PGO front. We are > primarily interested in using instrumentation, rather than sampling, > to collect profile info. However, I suspect the way profile ended up > being used in the various optimization and codegen passes would be > largely similar. > Excellent! We are initially

Hello! (+cc Adam Nemet, since he presented on optimization remarks at LLVM Dev Mtg 2016) I have a large C++ program, which I am compiling using a sampling profile generated via perf and AutoFDO. I'd like to use this profile in order to show the hotness of each code path that is displayed in the new optimization remarks viewer tool ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qq0q1hfzidg). It seems,

I have the following code: static inline void foo() __attribute((always_inline)); int a; static inline void foo() { a++; } int main(int argc, char *argv[]) { foo(); return 0; } However, the code generated by llvm 2.4 toolchain does not inline this function. opt retains the function call. Here is the output when I try to compile with -debug-only=inline:

When either '-pg' or '-finstrument-functions' is used, the compiler inserts the appropriate profiling hooks. This happens prior to inlining, so the hooks remain in place. Normally this is fine, but with C++ and the heavy use of inline functions and templates, there can be a vast number of trivial functions that are normally optimised away; but with the instrumentation hooks

On Jun 18, 2013, at 2:48 PM, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 11:19 AM, Bob Wilson <bob.wilson at apple.com> wrote: >> >> On Jun 17, 2013, at 6:54 AM, Diego Novillo <dnovillo at google.com> wrote: >> >>> On 2013-06-15 14:18 , Evan Cheng wrote: >>>> Apple folks are also gearing up to push on the

> On Dec 13, 2016, at 3:46 AM, Martin J. O'Riordan via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > When either ‘-pg’ or ‘-finstrument-functions’ is used, the compiler inserts the appropriate profiling hooks. This happens prior to inlining, so the hooks remain in place. Have you tried compiling with -fprofile-generate? It enables IR-based profiling instrumentation, which

On Sep 16, 2009, at 6:55 PM, madiyaan wrote: > > I have the following code: > > static inline void foo() __attribute((always_inline)); > > int a; > static inline void foo() > { > a++; > } > > int main(int argc, char *argv[]) > { > foo(); > return 0; > } This works fine in current sources. You should upgrade; 2.5 has been out for a while and

Thanks Vedant, and my apologies for the delay getting back to you - work got "busy". I wasn't aware of the '-fprofile-generate' option, so thanks for point this out. I have tried running it and I can see the instrumentation hooks that it generates - I assume that there is a library I have to implement to support this, can you let me know where the source for this library

I got the code to work in a LLVM 2.5. I think the reason your code wasn't working is that the function definition and declaration for foo were missing 'void'. This is perfectly legal C but maybe there's a bug in the inliner pass that sees the function in the module and the symbol table as different. Here are the files I used: [test.c] int a; void foo(void); int main(int argc,

Hi everyone ! If I call ExecutionEngine::createJIT (or EngineBuilder::create) more than one time, the second time fails on a assertion "Multiple JIT resolvers?". It seems that the JIT is designed to be a singleton in the process, and I was wondering if it was something mandatory. How hard will it be to make it a non-singleton object ? Is this a JIT-only problem (work needed on JIT

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: