similar to: [LLVMdev] Interprocedural Block Placement algorithm, challenges and opportunities

Hi John Thanks for your suggestions, they all sound reasonable to me. The way I'm thinking right now is to write a MachineFuncionPass that iterate through each MachinBasicBlock, for each MBB, adds up the instructions counts of previous MBBs, that number multiply by 4 should be the offset of that MBB from its MachineFunction. In order to correctly count the instructions, this pass should be

Hi, all Is there a way of getting the basic block offset from its parent function ? What I'm trying to do is to get an execution count of each basic blocks, so I need to know the starting address of each basic blocks. Obviously we can't get the absolute address before linking the program, but the offset relative to parent function should be available so I can take it and get the function

On Oct 18, 2011, at 5:22 PM, Chandler Carruth wrote: >> As for why it should be an IR pass, mostly because once the selection dag runs through the code, we can never recover all of the freedom we have at the IR level. To start with, splicing MBBs around requires known about the terminators (which we only some of the time do), and it requires re-writing them a touch to account for the

On 2/27/15 6:30 PM, Ziqiang Patrick Huang wrote: > Hi, all > > Is there a way of getting the basic block offset from its parent > function ? At the LLVM IR level, no. At the code generator layer (MachineFunctionPass layer or the MC layer), probably yes. > > What I'm trying to do is to get an execution count of each basic > blocks, so I need to know the starting

On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 4:31 PM, Jakob Stoklund Olesen <stoklund at 2pi.dk>wrote: > > On Oct 18, 2011, at 3:07 PM, Chandler Carruth wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 2:59 PM, Cameron Zwarich <zwarich at apple.com>wrote: > >> I think this should really live as a CodeGen pass. Is there any good >> reason to make it an IR pass? >> > > So, as it

On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 7:39 AM, Ziqiang Patrick Huang < ziqiang.huang1001 at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi John > > Thanks for your suggestions, they all sound reasonable to me. The way I'm > thinking right now is to write a MachineFuncionPass that iterate through > each MachinBasicBlock, for each MBB, adds up the instructions counts of > previous MBBs, that number multiply

On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 6:58 PM, Jakob Stoklund Olesen <stoklund at 2pi.dk>wrote: > > On Oct 18, 2011, at 5:22 PM, Chandler Carruth wrote: > > As for why it should be an IR pass, mostly because once the selection dag >> runs through the code, we can never recover all of the freedom we have at >> the IR level. To start with, splicing MBBs around requires known about

On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 2:59 PM, Cameron Zwarich <zwarich at apple.com> wrote: > On Oct 18, 2011, at 2:53 AM, Chandler Carruth wrote: > > > Hello, > > > > I'm working on basic-block placement optimizations based on branch > probability information. I've run into a stumbling block though. One of the > existing passes to do this, essentially a dead pass

There seems to be semantic overlap with stackmap, patchpoint, and statepoint as well. I suspect we should remove pcmarker and forward serialize it in bitcode as a nop. Philip On 12/16/2015 02:14 PM, Justin Bogner via llvm-dev wrote: > Rob Lyerly via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> writes: >> I've seen previous messages about "llvm.pcmarker" not being

Hi all, I've seen previous messages about "llvm.pcmarker" not being supported on x86 (e.g. http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2010-February/029239.html and http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2012-June/051104.html). However, these messages are several years old -- is the intrinsic still not implemented? -- Rob Lyerly Graduate Research Assistant, Systems Software

On Friday 15 April 2005 18:49, Chris Lattner wrote: > On Fri, 15 Apr 2005, Vladimir Prus wrote: > > Hello, > > I just wrote the code like this: > > > > BuildMI(BB, NM::CALL, 1) > > .addExternalSymbol(("_lvksda_control_marker_" > > + > > lexical_cast<string>(bb)).c_str()); > >

Hello, I'm working on basic-block placement optimizations based on branch probability information. I've run into a stumbling block though. One of the existing passes to do this, essentially a dead pass 'block-placement' operates on the IR, reordering the blocks of the function, and relying on the code generator to preserve that order unless it has a reason to rearrange it. This

Hi list, For a tool I'm working on I'd like to know where instructions end up in compiled executables by looking them up in the symbol table. Therefore, I've been trying to use the llvm.pcmarker Intrinsic, but I've had no luck. When I pass .bc files with this intrinsic into llc, I'm given this error: LLVM ERROR: Cannot yet select: 0x2026938: ch PCMarker 0x1f0c678, 0x20268b0

On Fri, 15 Apr 2005, Vladimir Prus wrote: >> Another thing that might be interesting is the new llvm.pcmarker intrinsic >> that Andrew recently added. I have no idea if it would be useful to you >> or not, but... it's documented here: >> http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu/docs/LangRef.html#i_pcmarker > > In fact, I'm having problems exactly while lowering the pcmarker

On Oct 18, 2011, at 3:07 PM, Chandler Carruth wrote: > On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 2:59 PM, Cameron Zwarich <zwarich at apple.com> wrote: > I think this should really live as a CodeGen pass. Is there any good reason to make it an IR pass? > > So, as it happens, I was *completely* wrong here. CodeGen correctly preserves the ordering of blocks from IR, *unless* it can do folding,

On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 3:24 AM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com>wrote: > On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 6:58 PM, Jakob Stoklund Olesen <stoklund at 2pi.dk>wrote: > >> >> On Oct 18, 2011, at 5:22 PM, Chandler Carruth wrote: >> >> As for why it should be an IR pass, mostly because once the selection >>> dag runs through the code, we can never

Hi, I'm also working on a tool in which I'd like to know the instruction PCs. So for now, the intrinsic is still not supported on x86? -Ang -- View this message in context: http://llvm.1065342.n5.nabble.com/State-of-llvm-pcmarker-Intrinsic-tp31677p46619.html Sent from the LLVM - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

On Oct 18, 2011, at 2:53 AM, Chandler Carruth wrote: > Hello, > > I'm working on basic-block placement optimizations based on branch probability information. I've run into a stumbling block though. One of the existing passes to do this, essentially a dead pass 'block-placement' operates on the IR, reordering the blocks of the function, and relying on the code generator

Hello, I just wrote the code like this: BuildMI(BB, NM::CALL, 1) .addExternalSymbol(("_lvksda_control_marker_" + lexical_cast<string>(bb)).c_str()); and got some unexpected string in the assembler output. The problem is that when external symbol is added to MachineInstruction, MachineOperand is created with the char*

On Fri, 15 Apr 2005, Vladimir Prus wrote: > Hello, > I just wrote the code like this: > > BuildMI(BB, NM::CALL, 1) > .addExternalSymbol(("_lvksda_control_marker_" > + lexical_cast<string>(bb)).c_str()); > > and got some unexpected string in the assembler output. The problem is > that when external