similar to: [LLVMdev] Annotating output assembly with input C statements

On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 3:17 PM, Alireza Moshtaghi < Alireza.Moshtaghi at synopsys.com> wrote: > Hi, > I'm trying to annotate the final assembly output of my llvm codegen with > the corresponding input C statements. > It would've been super easy if the source information were included in the > IR debug info. But obviously they are not, and there are good reasons why

What Vedant said -- the profiler runtime provides buffer API for profile dumping. Note that value profiling dumping is not yet supported for buffer API, but since you are using Front-end based instrumentation/profile-use, value profiler is not turned on by default anyway. David On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 5:29 PM, Vedant Kumar <vsk at apple.com> wrote: > > On Dec 19, 2017, at 5:16 PM,

Hi, I'm trying to implement an overloading behavior to some of our builtin functions, and came across the following comment in SemaExpr.cpp // Check for overloaded calls. This can happen even in C due to extensions. If (Fn->getType() == Context.OverloadTy) { .... I was wondering which C extensions is this referring to? Thanks Ali -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment

I can't send the exact objects, but I'll try to reproduce. Thanks A On 11/16/20, 9:48 AM, "Fāng-ruì Sòng" <maskray at google.com> wrote: NetApp Security WARNING: This is an external email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. On Mon, Nov 16, 2020 at 9:05 AM Moshtaghi, Alireza

Below I have pasted the latest design that we discussed... Now we would like to pick it up and do the implementation. 1) Is there any last change that we would like to add? 2) Has anyone been working on it? I haven't seen any thing new in the code so I assume the answer is no... Thanks Alireza Moshtaghi Senior Software Engineer Development Systems, Microchip Technology Subject: Troubling

Thank you So it does not seem to be relevant for what I’m trying to do. I’m doing something unconventional. The objective is to implement PGO and code coverage on a system that does not exit and does not have any file io, or any of stdc libraries that libclang-profile is using. (more like a kernel) So what I’m trying to do is instead of calling __llvm_profile_write_file () from the application,

I need to perform call graph analysis (after all modules are merged) to find which function calls which, and depending on the attributes that each function has and what functions call it, I may need to clone it and modify some of calls to that function to call the cloned function. Currently we are doing this in few acrobatic moves that span from an llvm-ld pass (to do call graph analysis) all the

Thank you Chris, That is great news... So his modifications are in llvm-2.2? How has Christopher tested them? Are there attributes or intrinsics that I can also use? A. -----Original Message----- From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] On Behalf Of Chris Lattner Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2008 9:23 PM To: LLVM Developers Mailing List Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] C

This is a common pitfall: people think that .text is the first section of the traditional concept "text segment" (which does not apply with LLD layout and GNU ld's -z separate-code layout) You need to use --image-base=0 https://releases.llvm.org/10.0.0/tools/lld/docs/ReleaseNotes.html#breaking-changes On Mon, Nov 16, 2020 at 10:31 AM Moshtaghi, Alireza <Alireza.Moshtaghi at

Previously we talked about adding new attributes to function to identify the promotion class. > sign_ext_from_i8, sign_ext_from_i16 > zero_ext_from_i8, zero_ext_from_i16 Aren't these attributes more applicable to return value? of course then the question would be if they are also applicable to parameters too? (because we use same attributes for parameters and return value)? or

My target requires that text section be at 0x0 so "-Ttext 0x0" is passed to the linker. When I link with gold, it goes through; but lld fails. Instead of always returning the same calculation, when I change the calculation to the following, it links: return first->offset + (os->addr > first->addr ? os->addr - first->addr :

I am trying to verify the generated DAG after converting from llvm to DAG, however I'm not sure if this is correct or not. Here is the situation: In order to get LLVM to lower to 8-bit I have to define only 8-bit registers and the pointer size also to be 8-bit. Doing so, the attached DAG is generated for a load:i16. I have problem understanding this DAG in two places: 1)As you can see the

So does that mean that LLVM can't lower automatically to 8-bit values? I tried defining 8-bit pointers in the subtarget using "p:8:8:8" but it asserts at line 566 of TargetData.cpp in the default case of TargetData::getIntPtrType() Is it difficult to add 8-bit support? A. -----Original Message----- From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] On

On 2020-06-02, Moshtaghi, Alireza wrote: >Sorry for the cryptic code but I had to modify stuff from original >In the following example see the difference when you comment or uncomment the line in the linker script: >============ test.c ============= : >struct orphan_dummy_anno_s { > void (*func)(void); >}; > >static void dummy_export_dbg_log_init_f (void) __attribute__

Thank you Evan, I added the return Type::Int8Ty to the switch statement to get it to work. I don't know if this can have other consequences, I haven't yet verified if the generated Legalized DAG is correct though. A. -----Original Message----- From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] On Behalf Of Evan Cheng Sent: Monday, October 01, 2007 3:23 PM To:

Christopher, Thank you for all the work :-) Regarding the regression testing, it is in our plan to contribute into LLVM. The current state of our project is not in the form that we can do this at this time though, but I'm hoping that we can get some minimal functionality into LLVM before LLVM 2.3 (at most LLVM 2.4) release. Looks like you have also (at least on your local project) taken

Hi, I have started to write an llvm backend for one of our microcontrollers (PICxx). I started studying the framework of PowerPc backend of llvm and decided to start by following that framework. Now I have most of the classes and Tblgen files written for a very basic hypothetical microcontroller with very few instructions. The project builds and the llc recognizes the new processor, however,

ExpandOp is not called at all. In SelectionDAGLegalize::HandleOp() only the ValueType is considered in the switch statement to decide if it is legal or promote or expand. As I trace back (correct me if I'm wrong) these values are set in TargetLowering::computeRegisterProperties() and it is based on the largest register class (in my case the smallest possible pointer size, 16-bit) So it reduces

Some of the optimizations that the first DAG combine performs is counter productive for our 8-bit target. For example in: // I dropped the types because they are irrelevant. // Excuse me for changing the syntax... store %tmp1, %var %tmp2 = load %var %tmp4 = add %tmp3, %tmp2 Since load is the only user of var and since var has just be stored to, it assumes that %tmp1 is alive and it goes ahead

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: