similar to: Obtaining the origin function for a local var after inlining

On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 1:56 AM Adrian Prantl <aprantl at apple.com> wrote: > > > > > On Sep 17, 2018, at 6:59 AM, Alexander Potapenko via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > > (I think I've asked a similar question off-list a couple of times, but > > never got an answer) > > > > Hi folks, > > > > For [K]MSAN

On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 5:18 PM Adrian Prantl <aprantl at apple.com> wrote: > > > > > On Sep 19, 2018, at 4:08 AM, Alexander Potapenko <glider at google.com> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 1:56 AM Adrian Prantl <aprantl at apple.com> wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >>> On Sep 17, 2018, at 6:59 AM, Alexander

On Thu, Aug 1, 2019 at 6:09 PM JF Bastien <jfbastien at apple.com> wrote: > > Hi Alexander, > > The code doesn’t compile. Could you send a godbolt.org link that shows the issue? Sorry about that, here's the link: https://godbolt.org/z/-PinQP Lines 4 to 8 are initializing |acpar|. If I'm understanding correctly, the store to 8(%rsp) at line 7 can be removed because of the

On Thu, Aug 1, 2019 at 6:38 PM JF Bastien <jfbastien at apple.com> wrote: > > > > > On Aug 1, 2019, at 9:20 AM, Alexander Potapenko <glider at google.com> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Aug 1, 2019 at 6:09 PM JF Bastien <jfbastien at apple.com> wrote: > >> > >> Hi Alexander, > >> > >> The code doesn’t compile. Could you send

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

Hi all, I'm trying to figure out which parameters of a given InlineAsm instruction are its inputs, and which are the outputs (rationale: make sure MSan doesn't check the output parameters of an asm() statement). As far as I understand, this information is only available through the ConstraintInfoVector for the InlineAsm. However there's no exact match between the constraints and the

Hi folks, When compiling the attached example with -ftrivial-auto-var-init=zero: $ clang -no-integrated-as -mno-sse -m64 -mstack-alignment=8 -O2 -ftrivial-auto-var-init=zero -enable-trivial-auto-var-init-zero-knowing-it-will-be-removed-from-clang -g -o ipt.ll -c ipt.i -w -S -emit-llvm , Clang generates an initialization memset() call for |acpar| in the IR: %0 = bitcast

Hi Alex Thanks for your email. But it seems not work. I removed the -fsanitize=address flag. The global buffer overflow message doesn't show. However, no *.sancov file is created after I run perlbench. Thus, I could not get the BB coverage. Do you have any ideas? Many Thanks Regards Muhui Alexander Potapenko <glider at google.com> 于2018年9月5日周三 下午7:14写道： > Hi Muhui, > > If

Could you provide an example where MSan checks an output parameter? On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 9:53 AM, Alexander Potapenko via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Hi all, > > I'm trying to figure out which parameters of a given InlineAsm instruction > are its inputs, and which are the outputs (rationale: make sure MSan > doesn't check the output parameters of

Hi If so, is it able to disable this check. All I need is just to get the BB coverage information Regards Muhui Alexander Potapenko <glider at google.com>于2018年9月5日 周三下午6:57写道： > This is a known problem in SPECCPU2006, see > https://github.com/google/sanitizers/wiki/AddressSanitizerFoundBugs > On Wed, Sep 5, 2018 at 7:36 AM Muhui Jiang via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at

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

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

> 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

Hi I am using SanitizerCoverage feature supported by clang to get the basicblock coverage. my tested binaries are spec cpu2006. I compiled the binary with the option COPTIMIZE = -O0 -fsanitize=address -fsanitize-coverage=bb -flto -fno-strict-aliasing -std=gnu89 -gdwarf-3 After the compiling process is end. I run the 400.perlbench. with the command ASAN_OPTIONS=coverage=1 ./perlbench.

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

Hi all, As per the instructions here <http://llvm.org/docs/DeveloperPolicy.html#obtaining-commit-access>, I contacted Chris Lattner to obtain commit access but haven't received a response (either positive or negative). What's the expected turnaround time for this (I contacted him five days ago)? In case he's currently unavailable, is there someone else I could contact? Thanks,

Hello This link didn't work for me. As I am getting error whose meaning is - there are no options as -arch i386 -arch x86_64. How should I remove this error? On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 6:11 PM, 陳韋任 <chenwj.cs97g at g2.nctu.edu.tw> wrote: > Hi Aayushi, > > Seems the link [1] answers your question. > > [1] http://stackoverflow.com/questions/28640585/build- >

On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 1:18 PM, Filipe Cabecinhas <filcab at gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks for proposing this. It seems like it might be an interesting > tool for us too. But this proposal seems a bit hand-wavy, and I think > it's missing some crucial info before we start heading this way. > > At least for the tools you are currently starting to implement, it > would be

In r219010, I merged integer and string fields into a single header field. By reducing the number of metadata operands used in debug info, this saved 2.2GB on an `llvm-lto` bootstrap. I've done some profiling of DW_TAGs to see what parts of PR17891 and PR17892 to tackle next, and I've concluded that they will be insufficient. Instead, I'd like to implement a more aggressive plan,

On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 8:53 PM, Alex Rosenberg <alexr at leftfield.org> wrote: > As all of these transforms are 1-to-1, can we still support the older metadata and convert it on the fly? > I'd prefer not to keep all of that code around to interpret both versions without a very good reason. -eric > Alex > >> On Oct 13, 2014, at 3:02 PM, Duncan P. N. Exon Smith