similar to: Removed a call to EmitXRayTable() from ARMAsmPrinter

Hi Renato, As far as I understand, such issues should be caught by the tests in compiler-rt/test/xray/TestCases/Linux. I found the following lines in compiler-rt/test/xray/lit.cfg that seem to disable the tests for non-64-bit targets: if config.host_os not in ['Linux'] or config.host_arch.find('64') == -1: config.unsupported = True @Serge: You will need to change this

Why there are no tests that would break in this case? On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 8:32 PM, Dean Michael Berris via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Oops -- sorry about that, this is definitely unintended. Adding in Martin who made the change. > > I'm happy to review changes to fix this, or if you don't get to it first I can drive by that part of the code and try

Hi Dean, I have a question for 32-bit platforms. I see in the code that you used the following in compiler-rt/trunk/lib/xray/xray_interface_internal.h : struct XRaySledEntry { uint64_t Address; uint64_t Function; unsigned char Kind; unsigned char AlwaysInstrument; unsigned char Padding[14]; // Need 32 bytes }; And the peer code in llvm/trunk/lib/Target/X86/X86MCInstLower.cpp : void

> On 4 Aug 2016, at 06:27, Serge Rogatch <serge.rogatch at gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Dean, > > I have a question about the following piece of code in compiler-rt/trunk/lib/xray/xray_trampoline_x86.S : > movq _ZN6__xray19XRayPatchedFunctionE(%rip), %rax > testq %rax, %rax > je .Ltmp0 > > // assume that %r10d has the function id. > movl %r10d,

> As Oleg points out, apparently the way we've configured the XRay tests in compiler-rt/... excludes running tests on non-64-bit platforms. arm7 is definitely not 64-bit and therefore means we've not been running those tests. :( I believe that for this particular case one does not need to have execution tests - you'd simply need to check for expected output and that's it. --

I think that 32-bit systems (especially ARM) may be short on memory so doubling the size of the table containing (potentially) all the functions may give a tangible overhead. I would even align the entries to 4 bytes (so 12 bytes per entry) on 32-bit platforms and to 8 bytes (so 24-bytes per entry) on 64-bit platforms, to improve CPU cache hits. What do you think? Cheers, Serge On 8 August 2016

I see. Thanks for clarifying. I'm Ok with merging these if Dean agrees, as I believe he's the code owner. Thanks, Hans On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 11:47 AM, Serge Rogatch <serge.rogatch at gmail.com> wrote: > There were no LLVM tests for presence of XRay instrumentation map in the > emitted assembly. You can see that https://reviews.llvm.org/D28624 adds this > check to the

I'm wondering why the lit tests didn't catch this as part of testing rc1 on ARM. On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 11:25 AM, Serge Rogatch <serge.rogatch at gmail.com> wrote: > XRay is tested automatically on build-bots with tests in LLVM and > compiler-rt . Or are you asking for manual testing instructions? > Of these 2 patches, the compiler-rt patch depends on LLVM patch because

How is XRay tested? IIRC, Renato didn't see any test failures on ARM? Merging sounds reasonbaly, I'd just like to understand what's the risk for the branch. On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 10:29 AM, Serge Rogatch <serge.rogatch at gmail.com> wrote: > Hans, these changes reached trunk in https://reviews.llvm.org/rL292516 and > https://reviews.llvm.org/rL292517 . Could you look?

Sorry, I initially included LLVM-Commits rather than LLVM-Dev. Fixed. On 26 January 2017 at 03:26, Serge Rogatch <serge.rogatch at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Dean, Renato, > > AFAIK, unfortunately, these critical Arm32 XRay fixes are not yet in 4.0: > https://reviews.llvm.org/D28624 , https://reviews.llvm.org/D28623 . The > first repairs XRay instrumentation map emission.

On 26 January 2017 at 20:04, Serge Rogatch <serge.rogatch at gmail.com> wrote: > Thank you for considering. > Dean, Renato - what do you think? Hi, sorry it took so long. Yes, those two patches are fundamental to make XRay work on ARM. Backporting makes sense. We already added XRay on both ARM and AArch64 release notes, so they have to work. :) --renato

Hi Dean, Do you have any estimates on when https://reviews.llvm.org/D21982 will reach mainline? (As I understood it's not yet there, looking at http://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/compiler-rt/trunk ). I would like to test ARM port of XRay, so ready logging would be handful. Thanks, Serge On 8 August 2016 at 17:41, Dean Michael Berris <dean.berris at gmail.com> wrote: > > > On 8

> On 30 Jul 2016, at 05:07, Serge Rogatch via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Thanks for pointing this out, Tim. Then maybe this approach is not the best choice for x86, though ideally measuring is needed, it is just that on ARM the current x86 approach is not applicable because ARM doesn't have a single return instruction (such as RETQ on x86_64), furthermore,

Thanks for pointing this out, Tim. Then maybe this approach is not the best choice for x86, though ideally measuring is needed, it is just that on ARM the current x86 approach is not applicable because ARM doesn't have a single return instruction (such as RETQ on x86_64), furthermore, the return instructions on ARM can be conditional. I have another question: what happens if the instrumented

On 29 July 2016 at 10:43, Dean Michael Berris <dean.berris at gmail.com> wrote: > > > On 29 Jul 2016, at 09:14, Serge Rogatch via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > > Hello, > > > > Can I ask you why you chose to patch both function entrances and exits, > rather than just patching the entrances and (in the patches) pushing on

On 28 July 2016 at 16:14, Serge Rogatch via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Can I ask you why you chose to patch both function entrances and exits, > rather than just patching the entrances and (in the patches) pushing on the > stack the address of __xray_FunctionExit , so that the user function returns > normally (with RETQ or POP RIP or whatever else instruction)

with some dirty hack , I've made xray runtime 'built' on windows , but unfortunately I haven't enough knowledge about linker and the runtime, and finally built executable didn't run. I'd like to share my changes here , hopes somebody help me to make it run on windows. in AsmPrinter, copy/paster xray for coff target InstMap =

Hi llvm-dev, I'm currently looking for alternatives to the synthetic references that XRay uses to keep some side-tables live, to avoid linker garbage collection from deleting those sections. Before going any further, let me give a backgrounder on what XRay does today. Background ========== XRay has two side tables we use at runtime to identify the location of the sleds for the functions

I'm learning the xray library and try if it can be built on windows, in xray_fdr_logging_impl.h line 152 , comment written as // Using pthread_once(...) to initialize the thread-local data structures but at line 175, 183, code written as thread_local pthread_key_t key; // Ensure that we only actually ever do the pthread initialization once. thread_local bool UNUSED Unused = [] {

Hi, As part of working on XRay, I'm trying to accomplish the following: create a section that contains an array of entries pertaining to the instrumentation map (nop sleds) in an object file, and have those merged into a single section in the final binary where the contents are concatenated. The trick though is I'd like to be able to reference the whole array with a single symbol (or two,