similar to: [LLVMdev] Code Owner for PGO and Branch Weights

It'd certainly make sense to say Diego owns the sample profiling parts and I the instrumentation profiling. Either of us should be sufficient for the parts that overlap. Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> writes: > Seems fine to me. Not sure if there is part of this that you want to > explicitly call out as owned by Diego. > > On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 12:38 AM, Andrew

Hi, all Recently I'm trying to use LLVM PGO and autoFDO. However I have some problems in the process. LLVM source code is updated on April 9th. Operating system is SUSE x86_64 1. Problems in instrumentation based PGO: clang -O2 -fprofile-instr-generate test.c -o a.out ./a.out (then default.profraw is generated) clang -O2 -fprofile-instr-use=default.profraw test.c -o a.out

The frontend-driven instrumentation based profiling used for clang's -fprofile-instr-generate and -fprofile-instr-use currently has logic for handling its data format spread about a few different places: 1. Reading files is done in clang when -fprofile-instr-use is specified. The logic is in CodeGen/CodeGenPGO.cpp. 2. Reading files is done by the (very preliminary) llvm-profdata tool,

On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 9:56 AM, Philip Reames <listmail at philipreames.com> wrote: > > > On 05/27/2015 11:13 AM, Duncan P. N. Exon Smith wrote: >>> >>> On 2015 May 27, at 07:42, Diego Novillo <dnovillo at google.com> wrote: >>> >>> On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 11:47 PM, Lee Hunt <leehu at exchange.microsoft.com> >>> wrote:

On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 8:43 AM, Bob Wilson <bob.wilson at apple.com> wrote: > >> On May 7, 2015, at 12:55 AM, Hayden Livingston <halivingston at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Can you tell us if you're continuing to use the same approach as >> described in one of the LLVM meetings, i.e. instrument at the clang >> AST level? > > Yes, that is the

Can you tell us if you're continuing to use the same approach as described in one of the LLVM meetings, i.e. instrument at the clang AST level? Also, do you generate GCOV files, some yaml, or is this a separate format? And finally in the meeting you had given how you assign counters to the blocks, an algorithm to minimize the number of insertions. Is that algorithm a well-known one or a

> > > > We may need some additional info. What kind of additional info? > I haven't put a ton of thought into > this, but I'm hoping we can either (a) use debug info as is or add some > extra (valid) debug info to support this, or (b) add an extra > debug-info-like section to instrumented binaries with the information we > need. > I'd try this data

[Splitting this out from the original thread to reduce noise in it] On 17.06.2013, at 18:43, Jakob Stoklund Olesen <stoklund at 2pi.dk> wrote: > > On Jun 17, 2013, at 7:03 AM, Benjamin Kramer <benny.kra at gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> On 17.06.2013, at 15:56, Diego Novillo <dnovillo at google.com> wrote: >> >>> On 2013-06-15 16:39 ,

On 05/27/2015 11:13 AM, Duncan P. N. Exon Smith wrote: >> On 2015 May 27, at 07:42, Diego Novillo <dnovillo at google.com> wrote: >> >> On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 11:47 PM, Lee Hunt <leehu at exchange.microsoft.com> wrote: >> >>> For example, from reading different pages on how Clang PGO, it’s unclear if >>> it does “block reordering” (i.e. moving

David Is this true for static heuristics as well ? If the bb freqs are scaled wrt to the entry block freq and a) use such scaled freqs for the bb's that have calls b) propagate this info topologically over the call graph, how representative will be the info if one just wants to use in a comparative sense ? -Dibyendu Sent from my Windows Phone ________________________________ From: Xinliang

> On 2015 May 27, at 07:42, Diego Novillo <dnovillo at google.com> wrote: > > On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 11:47 PM, Lee Hunt <leehu at exchange.microsoft.com> wrote: > >> For example, from reading different pages on how Clang PGO, it’s unclear if >> it does “block reordering” (i.e. moving unexecuted code blocks to a distant >> code page, leaving only ‘hot’

On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 2:33 PM, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> wrote: > > On Apr 18, 2016, at 2:28 PM, Xinliang David Li <davidxl at google.com> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 2:18 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at gmail.com> > wrote: > >> The difference between Analysis and Transforms is *not* about passes, but >> about what

On 04/18/2016 04:05 PM, Easwaran Raman via llvm-dev wrote: > > > On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 3:25 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at gmail.com > <mailto:chandlerc at gmail.com>> wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 3:20 PM Easwaran Raman <eraman at google.com > <mailto:eraman at google.com>> wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 3:00 PM,

Hi, After r256521 - which removes InlineCostAnalysis class - I think there is no strong reason for InlineCost.cpp to be part of the Analysis library. Is it fine to make it part of TransformUtils? I submitted r266477 (which has now been reverted) that made Analysis depend on ProfileData in order to obtain ProfileSummary for the module, but there is an existing dependency of ProfileData on

On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 3:20 PM Easwaran Raman <eraman at google.com> wrote: > On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 3:00 PM, Chandler Carruth via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 2:48 PM Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> >>>

> On Apr 18, 2016, at 2:07 PM, Hal Finkel via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Easwaran Raman" <eraman at google.com> >> To: "via llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> >> Cc: "Chandler Carruth" <chandlerc at gmail.com>, "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at

On Jun 17, 2013, at 7:03 AM, Benjamin Kramer <benny.kra at gmail.com> wrote: > > On 17.06.2013, at 15:56, Diego Novillo <dnovillo at google.com> wrote: > >> On 2013-06-15 16:39 , Benjamin Kramer wrote: >>> Do you want to take over this effort or should I poke more at it? >> >> Since you've already started, it's easier if you poke more at

> On Mar 24, 2015, at 12:08 PM, Xinliang David Li <davidxl at google.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 10:54 AM, Bob Wilson <bob.wilson at apple.com> wrote: >> >>> On Mar 24, 2015, at 10:53 AM, Diego Novillo <dnovillo at google.com> wrote: >>> >>> On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 1:48 PM, Bob Wilson <bob.wilson at apple.com> wrote:

Hi Chandler, I'm a GSoC student working on profiling support (mentor CC'ed). I'm no stranger to the issues with the current system: my original proposal was written without knowledge of the limitations. This is why this list hasn't heard much from me yet. I would like to continue working on profiling support but I'm not attached to ProfileInfo and wouldn't be

Hi all, I am a bit confused about the documentation of the format of the profile data file. The Clang user guide here describes it as an ASCII text file: http://clang.llvm.org/docs/UsersManual.html#sample-profile-format Whereas the posts above and the referenced link describe it as a stream of bytes containing LEB128s: http://www.llvm.org/docs/CoverageMappingFormat.html >From experimenting