similar to: [LLVMdev] Preserving ProfileInfo in Backend

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi, the second part of my work is to preserve the profiling information through all the transformation passes and make it available to the backend machinery. Attached is an example patch on how I plan to preserve the information for a given transformation pass. And now comes the question into place: whats the best way to attach the profile info

On Sep 8, 2009, at 1:27 AM, Andreas Neustifter wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Hi, > > the second part of my work is to preserve the profiling information > through all the transformation passes and make it available to the > backend machinery. > > Attached is an example patch on how I plan to preserve the information > for a given

Hi, Shuguang Feng wrote: > Thanks for such a rapid response! > >> Don't know about Passes in the backend, but this could be a problem of >> an FunctionPassManager trying to use a ModulePass. > > I manually applied the patch you provided for llc (I'm using the 2.5 > release of LLVM not ToT) and it fixed my compilation error. When your > patch replaced the

Shuguang Feng wrote: >> What does "llc -debug-pass=Structure" say? Is the ProfileLoaderPass >> really the last pass to touch the ProfileInfo before you are using it? > > Below is the sequence of passes that I see. Although the > NoProfileInfo pass is being run, it should be subsequently overridden > by ProfileInfoLoaderPass (LoaderPass) correct? Yes. >

Hello, Here are a few misc. comments on this patch. Would it make sense to mark the ProfileInfo passes as "CFGOnly?" If so, that would let them be automatically preserved by passes which don't modify the CFG (and that call AU.setPreservesCFG()). > + if (ProfileInfo* PI = getAnalysisIfAvailable<ProfileInfo>()) { > + PI->splitEdge(OrigPreHeader, NewHeader,

Hi! On 12/03/2009 07:50 PM, Dan Gohman wrote: > Hello, > > Here are a few misc. comments on this patch. > > Would it make sense to mark the ProfileInfo passes as "CFGOnly?" > If so, that would let them be automatically preserved by passes > which don't modify the CFG (and that call AU.setPreservesCFG()). Yes, it would, how do I do this? :-) >> +

> What does "llc -debug-pass=Structure" say? Is the ProfileLoaderPass > really the last pass to touch the ProfileInfo before you are using it? Below is the sequence of passes that I see. Although the NoProfileInfo pass is being run, it should be subsequently overridden by ProfileInfoLoaderPass (LoaderPass) correct? Target Data Layout Create Garbage Collector Module Metadata

Hi all, this (altough a big patch) is actually pretty straight forward: It (tries) to preserve ProfileInfo in all -std-compile-opts passes and all X86-Backend passes. There is still some passes that have corner cases where the ProfileInfo is not correct after the pass. Some passes are still missing... How shall I proceed with this? Andi -------------- next part -------------- A non-text

Hi, I'm fighting with this quite some time now: Is there a way to mark an Analysis (in my case ProfileInfo) as perserved by _all_ passes? I have tried to add ProfileInfo directly in Pass.h:getAnalysisUsage() but that produces nasty circular library dependecies. I also tried to simply store a pointer to the ProfileInfo in Module but then the PassManager gets confused resulting in double

Thanks for such a rapid response! > Don't know about Passes in the backend, but this could be a problem of > an FunctionPassManager trying to use a ModulePass. I manually applied the patch you provided for llc (I'm using the 2.5 release of LLVM not ToT) and it fixed my compilation error. When your patch replaced the FunctionPassManager used by llc with a PassManager the error went

Hi, Shuguang Feng wrote: > Does the current LLVM backend support reading in profile information > (without preserving across transformations)? An earlier poster Yes, it does. > http://groups.google.com/group/llvm-dev/browse_thread/thread/4bd65dbe84394bb7 > > noted that accessing execution counts in a MachineFunction pass (using > the BasicBlock* corresponding to the respective

Hi all! On 11/20/2009 06:29 PM, Devang Patel wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 6:54 AM, Andreas Neustifter wrote: >> >> If I use AU.addRequired<ProfileInfo>() in SelectionDAGISel.cpp the >> wrong ProfileInfo is used. It uses the "No ProfileInfo" implementation >> if ProfileInfo but not the one from ProfileInfoLoaderPass. (Which is >>

Hi, Does the current LLVM backend support reading in profile information (without preserving across transformations)? An earlier poster http://groups.google.com/group/llvm-dev/browse_thread/thread/4bd65dbe84394bb7 noted that accessing execution counts in a MachineFunction pass (using the BasicBlock* corresponding to the respective MachineBasicBlock) returned 0 for all blocks. Running llc with

> It *is* allowed to access ModulePass analysis information from an > FunctionPass? BasicBlockPlacement (a FunctionPass) also accesses the profile information and I assumed it worked (but haven't independently verified this). > Can you try to manually override the PI value in the > MyCodeGenPass::runOnMachineFunction() to the value seen in llc and then > access the

Hi. On 11/17/2009 08:16 PM, Andreas Neustifter wrote: > Hi, > > Devang Patel wrote: >> On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 9:03 AM, Andreas Neustifter >> <astifter-llvm at gmx.at> wrote: >> >>> Okay, so the ProfileInfoLoader is working, but when I examine the executions more closely I see that the ProfileInfo generated by the ProfileInfoLoader is immediately

Hi, Devang Patel wrote: > On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 9:03 AM, Andreas Neustifter > <astifter-llvm at gmx.at> wrote: > >> Okay, so the ProfileInfoLoader is working, but when I examine the executions more closely I see that the ProfileInfo generated by the ProfileInfoLoader is immediately discarded, when the SelectionDAGISel kicks in the "No Profile Info"-Implementation

On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 6:54 AM, Andreas Neustifter <astifter-llvm at gmx.at> wrote: > > If I use  AU.addRequired<ProfileInfo>() in SelectionDAGISel.cpp the > wrong ProfileInfo is used. It uses the "No ProfileInfo" implementation > if ProfileInfo but not the one from ProfileInfoLoaderPass. (Which is > immediately discarded after creation.) > You need to

Ah BTW... On 25.02.2010, at 17:33, ambika wrote: > ProfileInfo *PI; > PI = &getAnalysis<ProfileInfo>(); If this _in_ your pass, then you have to register the usage of this in the getAnalysisUsage() method: void getAnalysisUsage(AnalysisUsage &AU) const { AU.addRequired<ProfileInfo>(); } Also you have to ensure that the pass you are using is executed right

Hi all, I have some questions about the maintenance of the Profiling Code, since this is largely my contribution I still feel responsible for it. (I have not finished my master thesis, so it also is still work in progress... :-) When there are API changes in LLVM, I guess the person changing the API is responsible for changing all the occurrences in LLVM? (So I do not have to worry about

I have not made a separate pass. I have done it in single pass ie added ProfileLoaderPass , got information in PI and now I am planning to perform the analysis here itself. I was trying to print information using ProfileInfoPrinter pass but was unable to do it. namespace { class MyAna : public ModulePass { ProfileInfo *PI; public: static char ID; // Class identification, replacement