similar to: [LLVMdev] Any known-reliable numbering scheme for basic blocks?

Sanjay, Kevin, Thank you for your reply. Kevin, I wonder if you are still working on it and have a plan to submit your changes for the review. Thanks, Taewook From: "Smith, Kevin B" <kevin.b.smith at intel.com<mailto:kevin.b.smith at intel.com>> Date: Monday, February 1, 2016 at 3:30 PM To: 'Sanjay Patel' <spatel at rotateright.com<mailto:spatel at

Hi Taewook - There's a discussion about the underlying x86 micro-arch details here: http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.compilers.llvm.cvs/167221 The conclusion was that we should change how we currently handle these, but we don't want to regress the case that was addressed by: http://reviews.llvm.org/rL195496 There are open bugs with more discussion related to this:

Hi all, I'm considering adding debug metadata logic to llvm-diff, but it looks like some heavy refactoring will be needed to do so. Who's the owner of it? There is too much logic in DifferenceEngine, classes being declared in the cpp file, sub-classes of DifferenceEngine that could be used by the metadata diff, but with the current style (FunctionDifferenceEngine(*this)) will be hard to

On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 12:15 PM, Xinliang David Li via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > +dehao. > > There are two potential problems: > > 1) the branch gets eliminated in the binary that is being profiled, so > there is no profile data > This seems like a fundamental problem for PGO. Maybe it is also responsible for this bug:

Hello Teresa, Thank you for your reply. I’m trying to create a small repro but find it hard to nail down because originally it is a big build. This happens with gold linker. Thanks, Taewook From: Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google.com> Date: Thursday, July 28, 2016 at 5:08 PM To: Taewook Oh <twoh at fb.com> Cc: via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> Subject: Re: [llvm-dev]

Hi Language Lawyers! In PR23827 ( https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=23827 ), a bitwise op on booleans is considered equivalent to a logical op: if ((x < 3) & (y > 10)) effectively becomes: if ((x < 3) && (y > 10)) where x and y are of type 'int'. The second statement (&&) requires short-circuit evaluation to bypass the y comparison when the x

Yes, I have the repro, though I can’t publish it externally. It would be great if you can upstream the patch so I can try it. Thank you for your explanation as well! -- Taewook From: <mehdi.amini at apple.com> on behalf of Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> Date: Friday, July 22, 2016 at 2:16 PM To: Taewook Oh <twoh at fb.com> Cc: via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at

On Oct 28, 2011, at 2:00 AM, Stepan Dyatkovskiy wrote: > I found next code when switch instruction differs: > > Engine.logf("right switch has extra case %r") << CaseValue; > > Where CaseValue is a ConstantInt object. Looking how logf works I found > that it invokes DiffConsumer::printValue method for CaseValue. And here > I found that CaseValue itself will

ping. -Stepan. Stepan Dyatkovskiy wrote: > Hi, > > Please find the attached patch for review. > > -Stepan. > > John McCall wrote: >> On Oct 28, 2011, at 2:00 AM, Stepan Dyatkovskiy wrote: >>> I found next code when switch instruction differs: >>> >>> Engine.logf("right switch has extra case %r")<< CaseValue; >>>

Hi all. I found next code when switch instruction differs: Engine.logf("right switch has extra case %r") << CaseValue; Where CaseValue is a ConstantInt object. Looking how logf works I found that it invokes DiffConsumer::printValue method for CaseValue. And here I found that CaseValue itself will never printed. On first look how DiffConsumer::printValue works it seems that for

Hi, Please find the attached patch for review. -Stepan. John McCall wrote: > On Oct 28, 2011, at 2:00 AM, Stepan Dyatkovskiy wrote: >> I found next code when switch instruction differs: >> >> Engine.logf("right switch has extra case %r")<< CaseValue; >> >> Where CaseValue is a ConstantInt object. Looking how logf works I found >> that it

Hello Teresa, Thank you for your analysis. One thing to note is that the global materializer materializes the value as a function declaration, not a function definition. As I pasted on my first email, ; Materializable ; Function Attrs: nounwind uwtable define weak_odr void @foo(%1*) unnamed_addr #7 comdat($comdat1) align 2 personality i32 (...)* @__gxx_personality_v0 {} is materialized to ;

Hi Taewook, On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 4:38 PM, Taewook Oh via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Encountered “assert(GS != DefinedGlobals.end())” failure while running > ThinLTO. The assertion statement is in MustPreserveGV lambda function in > llvm::thinLTOInternalizeModule (lib/Transforms/IPO/FunctionImport.cpp). > > > > It seems that the assertion fails

On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 5:18 PM, Taewook Oh <twoh at fb.com> wrote: > Hello Teresa, > > > > Thank you for your reply. I’m trying to create a small repro but find it > hard to nail down because originally it is a big build. This happens with > gold linker. > I think I need to see a smaller test case, looking through the code I'm not sure how we ended up in this

Hello, While trying ThinLTO, I ran into an assertion failure in IRMover: https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=28180. I found that the assertion failure is happening because IRMover tries to map the metadata that already mapped in the destination module, and it seems that this happens because two different IRMovers are used for the same destination (or composite) module. During LTO, an IRMover

It was r274523. I’m not sure it was the same module. By mistake I restarted the build with the previous version without backing backing up the build artifacts :( Thanks, Taewook From: Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google.com> Date: Friday, July 29, 2016 at 3:30 PM To: Taewook Oh <twoh at fb.com> Cc: via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] [ThinLTO]

Encountered “assert(GS != DefinedGlobals.end())” failure while running ThinLTO. The assertion statement is in MustPreserveGV lambda function in llvm::thinLTOInternalizeModule (lib/Transforms/IPO/FunctionImport.cpp). It seems that the assertion fails because it fails to recover the "original name" of the global value. ModuleSummaryIndex::getOriginalNameBeforePromote attempts to get the

Yes, if I drop the debug flag then the original problem (assertion failure) comes back. Thanks, Taewook From: Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google.com> Date: Friday, July 29, 2016 at 3:52 PM To: Taewook Oh <twoh at fb.com> Cc: via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] [ThinLTO] assert(GS != DefinedGlobals.end()) failed in FunctionImport.cpp On Fri, Jul

On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 2:25 PM, Taewook Oh <twoh at fb.com> wrote: > Hello Teresa, > > > > Thank you for your analysis. One thing to note is that the global > materializer materializes the value as a function declaration, not a > function definition. As I pasted on my first email, > > > > ; Materializable > > ; Function Attrs: nounwind uwtable >

Hi, I have some summary data from which I know a few points and I'd like to remove them. Does anyone know if there is an R module that implements something like Hanson (1975)? Hanson (1975). Stably updating mean and standard deviation of data. Communications of the ACM, 18(1), 57-58.