similar to: [LLVMdev] Coverage mapping issue: Malformed profile data

Hi! I am trying to get a combined coverage report from multiple executables. Looking at earlier discussions [1, 2], it looks like this is supposed to work. I am having some difficulty getting this to work as I would expect it to work, however. Following is a simple case to explain: ////////// shared.h #include <string> void Print1(const std::string& msg); void Print2(const

Hi Sadrul, > On Mar 8, 2018, at 7:40 PM, Sadrul Chowdhury via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Hi! I am trying to get a combined coverage report from multiple > executables. Looking at earlier discussions [1, 2], it looks like this > is supposed to work. I am having some difficulty getting this to work > as I would expect it to work, however. Following is

Hello, We have a user that wants to get the code coverage report for his library without turning on instrumentation for the library clients or change how they are built (only the library is instrumented). It seems like the inline member functions defined in headers are not instrumented in this case because the clients are not instrumented. The library itself does not have a copy of the inline

> On May 23, 2016, at 8:56 PM, Xinliang David Li <davidxl at google.com> wrote: > > On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 8:23 PM, Sean Silva <chisophugis at gmail.com> wrote: > Jake and I have been integrating IRPGO on PS4, and we've identified 3 remaining work items. > > Sean, thanks for the write up. It matches very well with what we think as well. + 1 > - Driver

On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 3:41 PM, Vedant Kumar <vsk at apple.com> wrote: > > > On May 23, 2016, at 8:56 PM, Xinliang David Li <davidxl at google.com> > wrote: > > > > On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 8:23 PM, Sean Silva <chisophugis at gmail.com> > wrote: > > Jake and I have been integrating IRPGO on PS4, and we've identified 3 > remaining work

> On May 24, 2016, at 5:21 PM, Sean Silva <chisophugis at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 3:41 PM, Vedant Kumar <vsk at apple.com <mailto:vsk at apple.com>> wrote: > > > On May 23, 2016, at 8:56 PM, Xinliang David Li <davidxl at google.com <mailto:davidxl at google.com>> wrote: > > > > On Mon, May 23, 2016 at

It sounds to me we are likely to converge on the following: 1) Making IR/llvm based PGO the default; 2) Enhance -fcoverage-mapping such that it automatically turns on FE based instrumentation 3) if -fcoverage-mapping is used together with -fprofile-instr-generate, -fcoverage-mapping serves as a switch to turn on FE based instrumetnation All the above are transparent to users. The following are

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

> On Jun 1, 2016, at 1:46 PM, Sean Silva <chisophugis at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 6:02 PM, Frédéric Riss <friss at apple.com <mailto:friss at apple.com>> wrote: > >> On May 24, 2016, at 5:21 PM, Sean Silva <chisophugis at gmail.com <mailto:chisophugis at gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> >> >> On

> On Jun 2, 2016, at 12:10 AM, Sean Silva <chisophugis at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 5:46 PM, Frédéric Riss <friss at apple.com <mailto:friss at apple.com>> wrote: > >> On Jun 1, 2016, at 1:46 PM, Sean Silva <chisophugis at gmail.com <mailto:chisophugis at gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> >> >> On

On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 5:30 PM, Sean Silva <chisophugis at gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 2:51 PM, Frédéric Riss <friss at apple.com> wrote: > >> >> On Jun 2, 2016, at 12:10 AM, Sean Silva <chisophugis at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 5:46 PM, Frédéric Riss <friss at apple.com> wrote:

Quick update. I've gotten derailed from posting a patch for this due to focusing on higher priority PGO inlining work. No ETA. -- Sean Silva On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 6:06 PM, Sean Silva <chisophugis at gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 6:41 PM, Xinliang David Li <davidxl at google.com> > wrote: > >> >> >> On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 5:30

Hi Diego, thanks for clarifying the difference between the two formats. I have noticed the new note in the "Sample Profile Format" section of the Clang guide clarifying that it is different from the coverage format. So, my further question is... Am I right in understanding that both formats can be used for PGO purposes then? I have tried the following, as in the Clang user guide: $

The PGO was my first guess but I can get a lot of information. At first, I follow the explanation at http://clang.llvm.org/docs/UsersManual.html#profiling-with-instrumentation but instead of llvm-profdata merge, I used llvm-profdata show *.profraw. Sadly, the information I get is the total number of function, the maximum function count and the maximum internal block count. Do you know if you

Hi everybody, I'm trying to get loop hotness data across a suite (e.g. the llvm test-suite). Ideally, this would be a list that for each loop would list how many times it was entered and what was its iteration count (at least the latter). The closest thing I could come up with is: - clang -fprofile-instr-generate (without opts) to get a .profraw - Get the .profdata - Give that back to clang

Thanks for testing out LLVM PGO and evaluated the performance. We are currently still more focused on infrastructure improvement which is the foundation for performance improvement. We are making great progress in this direction, but there are still some key missing pieces such as profile data in inliner etc. We are working on that. Once those are done, more focus will be on making more passes

Hello, Our goals for the code coverage BoF (10/19) were to find areas where we can improve the coverage tooling, and to learn more about how coverage is used. I'd like to thank all of the attendees for their input and for making the BoF productive. Special thanks to Mandeep Grang, who volunteered as a mic runner at the last minute. In this email I'll share my (rough) notes and outline

On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 11:28 AM, Tilmann Scheller <tilmann at osg.samsung.com> wrote: > Hi Sedat, > > On 03/03/2016 08:09 AM, Sedat Dilek via llvm-dev wrote: >> >> It might be that a CLANG generated with LTO/PGO speeds up the build. >> Can you confirm this? > > Yes, a Clang host compiler built with LTO or PGO is generally faster than an > -O3 build. >

> > I think it is reasonable to simply replace the key we currently use with > MD5(key) for getting a size reduction. In practice for my use cases, I have > not observed any of the issues you mentioned under "Large size of overhead > can limit the usability of PGO greatly", but I can understand that some of > these issues could become problems in Google's use case.

> On Jun 2, 2016, at 5:30 PM, Sean Silva <chisophugis at gmail.com> wrote: > > This also means that if the consensus is that -fprofile-instr-generate should really change its meaning to mean IRPGO, I’m open to having this internal patch on our side. > > Yeah, it sounds like someone is going to have to keep a "private patch" to change the default. At that point