similar to: PGO question

Hello, I have a question regarding PGO instrumented BBs (I use IR-level instrumentation). It seems that instrumented BBs do not match between the two compilations for profile-gen and profile-use for some cases. Here is an example from SPECcpu 2006 lbm (a simple case consisting of just two modules). In the first compilation, we have 5 instrumentation points for the main function as follows: $

Hello, I'm learning how LLVM performs PGO (profile-guided optimizations) by using the instrumentation-based profile build (-fprofile-instr-generate and -fprofile-instr-use). However, I found there is no difference in inlining behaviors between with and without PGO for a few spec benchmarks by checking the emit optimization reports (-Rpass=inline -Rpass-missed=inline -Rpass-analysis=inline).

On 2015 Jun 17, at 13:53, Diego Novillo <dnovillo at google.com> wrote: > The flags -fprofile-generate and -fprofile-use are currently ignored > for GCC compatibility. I would like to enable them and give them > similar semantics to GCC. These flags are baked pretty deeply into > our build environment, so supporting them at the driver level will > make our lives a lot

Hi fellow devs, I was looking for converting LLVM IR to JavaBytecode by using lljvm project of https://github.com/davidar/lljvm They don't seem to compile, once i run *make* in the root directory it give me the error : cd include && make all make[1]: Entering directory `/home/rtiwari1/llvm_new/lljvm/include' make[1]: Nothing to be done for `all'. make[1]: Leaving

Hi Justin , Thank you for the confirmation and we would like to know that ,going forward the clang has the support the gcc gcov format or use the -fprofile-instr-generate -fcoverage-mapping and get ride of gcov format . We are planing to customize the clang code coverage for embedded world ,before we start tweaking the gcov / -fprofile-instr-generate code-base ,we would like to take feedback

Umesh Kalappa <umesh.kalappa0 at gmail.com> writes: > Hi Justin , > > Thank you for the confirmation and we would like to know that ,going > forward the clang has the support the gcc gcov format or use the > -fprofile-instr-generate -fcoverage-mapping and get ride of gcov > format . Going forward, the -fprofile-instr-generate -fcoverage-mapping (which I'll refer to as

The flags -fprofile-generate and -fprofile-use are currently ignored for GCC compatibility. I would like to enable them and give them similar semantics to GCC. These flags are baked pretty deeply into our build environment, so supporting them at the driver level will make our lives a lot simpler. >From https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Optimize-Options.html:

That source file was removed from LLVM in r232397 on March 16, 2015. It looks like lljvm hasn't been updated in a long time. LLVM's C++ APIs are not stable, so there is no expectation that a project built against LLVM's C++ API in 2015 would build or reasonably function against LLVM trunk. The project probably works against LLVM 3.6.2 which was (I believe) the last LLVM release to

I think the simplest, most complete, short term fix, would be to call llvm::colorEHFunclets, and to have the relevant instrumentation passes apply the appropriate funclet bundle when inserting function calls. It's not elegant because it means every simple instrumentation pass that inserts regular function calls (ASan, TSan, MSan, instrprof, etc) needs to be funclet-aware. But, it will work,

I think this is the same underlying issue as https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=40320. CCing Reid, who's had a bunch of thoughts on this in the past. On 1/11/20, 10:25 AM, "llvm-dev on behalf of Chrulski, Christopher M via llvm-dev" <llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org on behalf of llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: Hi, I've run into a bug with the LLVM

Hi Not sure if this is a clang or llvm related question so I'm sending to both mailing lists. Anyways, I have few questions regarding size and execution time of instrumented code: We are trying to run code coverage on memory limited hardware and investigating both (generating gcov output using -coverage and the llvm's own way using -fprofile-instr-generate -fcoverage-mapping clang flags)

Hello everyone, I am able to work very well with annotations in C/C++, by using __attribute__((annotate("MYANNOTATION"))) static int a; . Inside the LLVM bytecode I have @llvm.global.annotations and @llvm.var.annotation. However, I was trying to test annotations also in Java, with VMKit. These are the commands that I run: javac -Xlint -g -O Main.java ../Release+Asserts/bin/vmjc Main

Hello Harris, Thank you for your answer. So it is there a way of annotating variables in Java Code, so I can see them into LLVM bytecode? Thank you ! On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 3:54 PM, Harris BAKIRAS <h.bakiras at gmail.com> wrote: > Hello Alexandru, > > No you did nothing wrong. > > We are using our own data structure to describe annotations in J3. So it > is normal

Hello Alexandru, No you did nothing wrong. We are using our own data structure to describe annotations in J3. So it is normal that you can not see your Java annotations inside the LLVM bytecode produced. If I remember well, our implementation of annotations do not rely on LLVM annotations. Regards, Harris Bakiras On 06/17/2013 02:19 PM, Alexandru Ionut Diaconescu wrote: > Hello

What classpath implementation are you using ? GNUClasspath or OpenJDK ? Harris Bakiras On 06/17/2013 03:57 PM, Alexandru Ionut Diaconescu wrote: > Hello Harris, > > Thank you for your answer. So it is there a way of annotating > variables in Java Code, so I can see them into LLVM bytecode? > > Thank you ! > > > On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 3:54 PM, Harris BAKIRAS

Problem ------- Instrumentation for PGO and frontend-based coverage places a large amount of data in object files, even though the majority of this data is not needed at run-time. All the data is needlessly duplicated while generating archives, and again while linking. PGO name data is written out into raw profiles by instrumented programs, slowing down the training and code coverage workflows.

There have been a lot of responses. I'll try to summarize the thread and respond to some of the questions/feedback. Summary ======= 1. We should teach GlobalDCE to strip out instrumented functions which the inliner cannot delete. 2. Sean suggests adding metadata to loads/stores of counters to convey that they do not alias normal program data. I'm not familiar with AA, but

Instrumentation based Profile Guided Optimization (PGO) is a compiler technique that leverages important program runtime information, such as precise edge counts and frequent value information, to make frequently executed code run faster. It's proven to be one of the most effective ways to improve program performance. An important design point of PGO is to decide where to place the

On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 5:54 PM, via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Problem > ------- > > Instrumentation for PGO and frontend-based coverage places a large amount > of > data in object files, even though the majority of this data is not needed > at > run-time. All the data is needlessly duplicated while generating archives, > and > again while

Hi, I'd like to add a new pass to LLVM which removes redundant profile counter updates. The goal is to speed up code coverage testing and profile generation for PGO. I'm sending this email out to describe my approach, share some early results, and gather feedback. Problem Overview ================ A profile counter is redundant if it's incremented in exactly the same basic blocks