similar to: Commit zlib source code into to llvm repo

Yes, zlib build for LTO will work, but user will have to build this lib from zlib source code anyway. On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 4:01 PM Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> wrote: > > On Sep 23, 2016, at 1:44 PM, Vitaly Buka via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Hi all, > > Is it possible to add zlib source code into llvm repo? Any advice on how

> On May 10, 2019, at 8:59 PM, Vitaly Buka via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Sorry for delay, I was busy with other stuff. > CTMark results. > > dse is the current DSE. > dsem is my experimental module level DSE. > dsem runs after dse, so it's additionally deleted stores. > > -O3 > dse - Number of stores deleted

Can you post numbers for how many stores get eliminated from CTMark? > On Apr 16, 2019, at 11:45 AM, Vitaly Buka <vitalybuka at google.com> wrote: > > I tried -Os and effect of new approach significantly increases. > I run regular DSE and immediately myDSE. With -Os myDSE removes more than 50% of DSE number. > Which is expected as -Os inlines less and regular DSE can't

Aside: would it be useful to execute a build of the libc++/libc++abi with msan normally during release, and change the driver to look for these msan-built C++ libs when "-fsanitize=memory"? That would drastically cut down on the complexity of using msan. On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 5:43 AM Dean Michael Berris via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Thanks Vitaly and

Hi JF, I've heard that you are interested DSE improvements and maybe we need to be in sync. So far I experimented with following DSE improvements: * Cross-block DSE, it eliminates additional 7% stores comparing to existing DSE. But it's not visible on benchmarks. * Cross-block + Interprocedural analysis to annotate each function argument with: - can read before write - will

On Mon, Apr 15, 2019 at 11:02 PM Amara Emerson via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > > On Apr 15, 2019, at 1:51 PM, Vitaly Buka via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > > Hi JF, > > > > I've heard that you are interested DSE improvements and maybe we need to be in sync. > > So far I experimented with

Switched all but PPC, I don't have access to them. But they run the same script as sanitizer-x86_64-linux. http://lab.llvm.org:8014/#/waterfall?tags=sanitizer On Mon, 12 Oct 2020 at 19:19, Galina Kistanova <gkistanova at gmail.com> wrote: > We have a better version of AnnotatedCommand on the staging. It should be > a functional equivalent of the old one. > We need to stress

There are two problems: 1. padding after union and call to q(), without LTO we can't remove that store. 2. shortcut which I have which ignores all instructions q() . this assume that memset to acpar.match, acpar.matchinfo also useful which is not true. I should be able to improve this case. On Thu, Aug 1, 2019 at 11:29 PM Vitaly Buka <vitalybuka at google.com> wrote: > On a first

On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 11:37 AM Vitaly Buka via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > I have no idea how. > Are there particular problems? Now it should be quite. > Console has a bunch of stale builders which are even less useful. > LLVM has a silent build master that does not send email. When Nico added the gn build, apparently we promised not to set up builders

Another option is just to run corresponding script from *https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/zorg/trunk/zorg/buildbot/builders/sanitizers/ <https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/zorg/trunk/zorg/buildbot/builders/sanitizers/>* in empty directory. On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 5:00 AM Peter Smith via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Hello Dean, > > I've not done this

This might be a bit late, but I've got another argument for bundling zlib source with LLVM. Sanitizer tools need to symbolize stack traces in the reports. We've been using standalone symbolizer binary until now; sanitizer runtime spawns a new process as soon as an error is found, and communicates with it over a pipe. This is very cumbersome to deploy, because we need to keep another

You shouldn't need to use bitcode and opt -internalize to hide the symbols. You can do it with objcopy --localize-hidden like we did for DynamoRIO, but I assume you prefer this route because it ports nicely to Mac. :) On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 5:24 AM, Evgeniy Stepanov <eugeni.stepanov at gmail.com> wrote: > This might be a bit late, but I've got another argument for bundling >

On Tue, 29 Jan 2019 at 21:05, JF Bastien via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > The patch is about ready to land, which means any older compiler will soft-error (which you can turn off with LLVM_TEMPORARILY_ALLOW_OLD_TOOLCHAIN). I think we should then cherry-pick the patch to the LLVM 8 branch. > > The last remaining issue are the buildbots. I audited *all* bots in

Hi Daniel, I did your experiment on a TK1 machine (same as the bots) and for r303258 I get: real 18m28.882s user 35m37.091s sys 0m44.726s and for r303259: real 50m52.048s user 88m25.473s sys 0m46.548s If I can help investigate, please let me know, otherwise we can just try your fixes and see how they affect compilation time. Thanks, Diana On 22 May 2017 at 10:49, Daniel

Great! I expect I'll be able to cut it down further once I start fusing these smaller state-machines together. Before that, I'll re-order the patches that went into that diff so that I don't have to re-commit the regression before fixing it. > On 31 May 2017, at 13:48, Diana Picus <diana.picus at linaro.org> wrote: > > Hi, > > This runs in: > real

Nope, no sanitizers. On 22 May 2017 at 11:38, Daniel Sanders <daniel_l_sanders at apple.com> wrote: > Is that with -fsanitize=memory too? > > I'm currently building ToT with r303258 reverted. Once that's done I'll commit the revert and start investigating fixes. > >> On 22 May 2017, at 10:22, Diana Picus <diana.picus at linaro.org> wrote: >>

Is https://reviews.llvm.org/differential/diff/100829/ replacement for r303341? If so LGTM. r303542 msan AArch64InstructionSelector.cpp: 1m17.209s r303542+diff/100829/ <https://reviews.llvm.org/differential/diff/100829/> msan AArch64InstructionSelector.cpp: 1m24.724s On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 6:13 AM, Daniel Sanders <daniel_l_sanders at apple.com> wrote: > Great! I expect

Our Flang-aarch64 buildbots just won't connect to the main Buildbot master anymore. I switched them to the staging buildbot master instead and it seems fine for now. Is there anything that we can/should tweak at our end? http://lab.llvm.org:8014/#/waterfall?tags=flang -Andrzej On 08/10/2020 00:31, Galina Kistanova via cfe-dev wrote: > They are online now -

It looks like all sanitizer builder are still offline http://lab.llvm.org:8011/#/builders On Tue, 6 Oct 2020 at 00:34, Galina Kistanova via cfe-commits < cfe-commits at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Hello everyone, > > The staging buildbot was up and running for 6 days now, and looks good. > > Tomorrow at 12:00 PM PDT we will switch the production buildbot to the new >

After a few attempts I think we’re in sight of success: we only have the two following bots remaining with old versions of libstdc++ and new versions of clang: polly-amd64-linux polly-arm-linux Once fixed the toolchain bump should stick. > On Jan 31, 2019, at 2:07 PM, JF Bastien via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > >> On Jan 31, 2019, at 2:03 PM,