similar to: Should Verifier be an analysis?

> On Mar 16, 2018, at 2:30 PM, Son Tuan VU <sontuan.vu119 at gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Vedant, > > Thank you for your reply. I think I can make this debugify-each mode, but I guess this is reserved for your GSoC project ? No, there's no reserved work. If you'd like to work on this I encourage you to do so. There's plenty of other work slated for the GSoC project.

Mhm I see now, thanks for your explanation! Son Tuan Vu On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 10:58 PM, Vedant Kumar <vsk at apple.com> wrote: > > On Mar 16, 2018, at 2:30 PM, Son Tuan VU <sontuan.vu119 at gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Vedant, > > Thank you for your reply. I think I can make this debugify-each mode, but > I guess this is reserved for your GSoC project ? > >

Hi Vedant, Thank you for your reply. I think I can make this debugify-each mode, but I guess this is reserved for your GSoC project ? However, if I understand correctly, we do not want to take the output of the first check-debugify (I mean the .ll file with potentially all the WARNINGs and ERRORs after the first pass) as input for the second debugify. What we need is to take the fresh output of

Hi Vedant, I have tried to implement the fix you proposed, but it didn't work as expected. I created a new *Module* Pass Manager (not Function Pass Manager) and override the *add()* method like this: class DebugifyEachPassManager : public legacy::PassManager { public: void add(Pass *P) override { PassManager::add(createDebugifyPass()); PassManager::add(P);

Hello, > On Apr 26, 2018, at 6:44 AM, Son Tuan VU <sontuan.vu119 at gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Vedant, > > I have tried to implement the fix you proposed, but it didn't work as expected. I created a new Module Pass Manager (not Function Pass Manager) and override the add() method like this: > > class DebugifyEachPassManager : public legacy::PassManager { >

Hi Vedant, hi all, My goal is to measure debug info loss of *each* optimization pass in LLVM. I am trying to create a debugify-each mode in opt, inspired by verify-each mode which is supposed to already work. However, if I understand correctly, the verify-each mode (triggered by -verify-each option in opt) only works when we provide a pass list or a pass pipeline. Is this intended? I mean, why

Hi Son Tuan, Thanks for taking a look at this :). Responses inline -- > On Mar 14, 2018, at 8:11 AM, Son Tuan VU <sontuan.vu119 at gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Vedant, hi all, > > My goal is to measure debug info loss of each optimization pass in LLVM. I am trying to create a debugify-each mode in opt, inspired by verify-each mode which is supposed to already work. +

Hi Vedant, Thanks for your reply. More comments inline. Son Tuan Vu On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 10:19 PM, Vedant Kumar <vsk at apple.com> wrote: > Hi, > > + Chandler, who has a lot more experience with our pass managers. > > On Apr 20, 2018, at 12:56 PM, Son Tuan VU <sontuan.vu119 at gmail.com> wrote: > > + Vedant: what do you think about the last point, since

+ Vedant: what do you think about the last point, since Debugify is also related? Son Tuan Vu On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 6:14 PM, Philip Pfaffe <philip.pfaffe at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Son, > > PassManagerBuilder is used to populate legacy PassManagers. That role is > taken over by PassBuilder for new-PM passes. > > Cheers, > Philip > > 2018-04-18 13:40 GMT+02:00

> On Apr 20, 2018, at 1:46 PM, Son Tuan VU <sontuan.vu119 at gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Vedant, > > Thanks for your reply. More comments inline. > > Son Tuan Vu > > On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 10:19 PM, Vedant Kumar <vsk at apple.com <mailto:vsk at apple.com>> wrote: > Hi, > > + Chandler, who has a lot more experience with our pass managers.

Hi, + Chandler, who has a lot more experience with our pass managers. > On Apr 20, 2018, at 12:56 PM, Son Tuan VU <sontuan.vu119 at gmail.com> wrote: > > + Vedant: what do you think about the last point, since Debugify is also related? Could you clarify the question? I'm not sure what it is you'd like me to chime in about. > 2, I've asked this question once but

Hello Paul, François and Vedant, Thank you all for your answers. And sorry for this late reply. I wanted to dig more into the LLVM source code to get a better understanding of the debug part of it before replying/asking more questions. I have came across this https://llvm.org/docs/SourceLevelDebugging.html#debugging-optimized-code which stated that "*Basically, the debug information allows

Hi, I'm not sure which passes exactly drop debug info, but it's likely that most of them do. If you're interested in working on this problem, I suggest experimenting with the debugify utility in opt. This tool can be used to identify passes which drop debug info and to generate targeted/reduced test cases for specific problems. To use it, you can add the '-enable-debugify'

Hello, @Anastasis: what do you think about this? Do you mind if I implement the debugify-each mode and refactor the code to have DebugifyFunctionPass and DebugifyLoopPass? I am sorry if it bothers you, I should have done this earlier, so you could focus on fixing the optimization passes. FYI, my debugify-each is quite ready, I am having Debugify and CheckDebugify before and after each ModulePass,

My experience is that just running mem2reg (while disabling virtually all other passes ) in O1 will substantially improve debuggability while giving acceptable performance. On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 11:39 AM, via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > (Remembering to +llvm-dev this time…) > > > > There has been some progress in the direction of improving debuggability

Hello, I’m an undergraduate student studying CS in the South China University of Technology. I have been using clang compiler and related tools since I started studying C++ and I would like to work on LLVM in this year’s GSoC. I am interested in “Implement a single updater class for Dominators”. [1] I have achieved a bronze medal in the 2017 ACM-ICPC Asia Xian Regional Contest [2] (being a

Hi Kuba, Thanks for your clarification on the project in the previous letter. I have submitted a proposal draft at the GSoC website, the draft has been shared with the LLVM organization. I will appreciate it if you can give me some advice on the proposal. This draft can be viewed by the organization. (If you do not have access, please mail me, and I will give you the link.) I am looking forward

Hi Kuba, Thanks for your advice in your previous letter. During last week, I have read the documents on Doxygen and the source code of the DomTreeBase/DomTree/PostDomTree/DeferredDominance class, I believe now I have a much better understanding on the relationship between these classes and how DeferredDominance class performs lazy updates. I have also learnt the current usage and drawbacks of

Hi Kuba, Thanks for your feedback. I have made some improvements on the proposal according to your feedback and clarify something on the time availability. I left comments on the questions you asked in the doc. Please check it out. Thanks, Chijun 2018-03-22 10:37 GMT+08:00 Jakub (Kuba) Kuderski <kubakuderski at gmail.com>: > Hi Chijun, > > I left you my feedback in the doc (+

Hi Chijun, Thanks for your interest in the project. I have gone through most of the LLVM Kaleidoscope tutorial and I have > watched the video of the presentation “Dominator Trees and incremental > updates that transcend time” presented on the 2017 LLVM Developers’ > Meeting. I have also started to understand the algorithm mentioned in > the comments of the code related to the