similar to: LTO and Inlining and Stack Frame Size

Thanks Easwaran. This is what we've observed as well, where the old PM inliner was only looking hot/cold callee information, which have signficantly smaller boosts/penalties compared to callsite information. Teresa, do you know if there is some documentation/video/presentation on how PGO information is represented in LLVM and what information is passed via the IR? I'm finding some

On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 1:46 PM, Teresa Johnson via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 1:38 PM, Graham Yiu <gyiu at ca.ibm.com> wrote: > >> Hi Teresa, >> >> Actually, enabling the new pass manager manually seems to have solved >> this issue, so this problem is only valid for the old pass manager. >> >

On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 3:30 PM, Xinliang David Li <davidxl at google.com> wrote: > On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 3:16 PM, Piotr Padlewski > <piotr.padlewski at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > 2016-09-02 15:04 GMT-07:00 Xinliang David Li <davidxl at google.com>: > >> > >> On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 2:58 PM, Piotr Padlewski > >>

Hi, I am working right now on importing based on PGO/FDO data. There is one issue that I found - when we calculate the list of imports, we can't get the ProfileSummaryInfo, which is the best and I think only valid way of checking if callsite/callee is hot (isHotCount()). There are 2 solutions that I come up with Teresa and Easwaran: 1. Add PGO data to summary 2. Replace

Hi Teresa, Actually, enabling the new pass manager manually seems to have solved this issue, so this problem is only valid for the old pass manager. Thanks, Graham Yiu LLVM Compiler Development IBM Toronto Software Lab Office: (905) 413-4077 C2-707/8200/Markham Email: gyiu at ca.ibm.com From: Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google.com> To: Graham Yiu <gyiu at ca.ibm.com> Cc:

I still wonder if this would be an issue in _standard_ (not thin) LTO? This test seems to be OK on my (slightly modified) standard LTO flow, but I do wonder for a more general case. Sergei --- Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation From: llvm-dev [mailto:llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org] On Behalf Of Peter Collingbourne

On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 11:16 AM, Peter Collingbourne <peter at pcc.me.uk> wrote: > On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 10:49 AM, Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google.com> > wrote: > >> >> >> On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 10:46 AM, Peter Collingbourne <peter at pcc.me.uk> >> wrote: >> >>> I suspect that the right way to do promotion/renaming of this

On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 9:51 AM, Duncan P. N. Exon Smith <dexonsmith at apple.com> wrote: > >> On 2015-Jun-04, at 07:10, Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google.com> wrote: >> >> On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 2:07 PM, Duncan P. N. Exon Smith >> <dexonsmith at apple.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On 2015-Jun-03, at 09:56, Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at

On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 10:46 AM, Peter Collingbourne <peter at pcc.me.uk> wrote: > I suspect that the right way to do promotion/renaming of this sort is to > rename at the MC layer just before writing the symbol table to the object > file. > I think that is too late - how would the symbols be distinguished in the LTO case below after the IR is linked but before we renamed the

I just built a stage-1 compiler from the 3.9 release bits and built the lldb from head sources which worked fine. Let me try again using 3.9 build compiler to build 3.9 bits. Teresa On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 2:55 PM, Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google.com> wrote: > > > On Tue, Sep 27, 2016, 2:38 PM Carsten Mattner <carstenmattner at gmail.com> > wrote: > >> On

On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 2:07 PM, Duncan P. N. Exon Smith <dexonsmith at apple.com> wrote: > >> On 2015-Jun-03, at 09:56, Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google.com> wrote: >> >> On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 1:18 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>> On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 1:05 PM, Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at

Hi Teresa, Thank you for the help, adding the "used" attribute worked just fine. It made me realize that the memset function is never inlined by the LTO optimization even without my implementation of the "EmitTargetCodeForMemSet" method. I supposed that the passes dealing with the memset function happen too late, is that correct? Thank you again, Romaric On Fri, Aug 28, 2020

Yes running LLVM performance test suite with LTO and Thin LTO enabled. Thanks, Siddharth On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 7:32 PM, Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google.com> wrote: > I'm not completely sure what you are asking. Are you looking for > performance benchmarks to use for LTO and ThinLTO testing? Or are you > asking how to build/run with LTO and ThinLTO? Are you asking how to

Is -fsplit-stack option used anywhere? My wild guess is that with ld.bfd, the thinLTO link for the DSO does not bring in morestack.o from libgcc.a, but the hidden symbol is defined in lldb binary. David On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 1:54 PM, Teresa Johnson via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Aha - finally reproduced! The difference is using ld.bfd not ld.gold. With > that I

Hopefully someone else on the dev list who has experience with LNT and the LLVM test-suite will chime in. I've never run it myself. Adding Mehdi since he ran it with LTO/ThinLTO. I found some documentation for the test-suite: https://llvm.org/docs/TestingGuide.html#test-suite-overview http://llvm.org/docs/lnt/quickstart.html http://llvm.org/docs/lnt/tests.html#llvm-cmake-test-suite But I

Hi, Thanks for the info, If i only want to run performance test on benchmarks for LTO and Thin LTO enabled target, Can u suggest ways to do it ? I want to do it at my end. Thanks, Siddharth On Wed, May 2, 2018 at 7:03 PM, Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google.com> wrote: > I've only measured performance on x86. There are some old results for SPEC > cpu2006 in the blog post here:

On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 3:50 PM, Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google.com> wrote: > > On Sun, Oct 2, 2016 at 4:02 AM, Carsten Mattner <carstenmattner at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Sun, Oct 2, 2016 at 6:41 AM, Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google.com> wrote: > > > > > I use trunk, but it depends on how close to the bleeding edge you > > > are

In uint64_t RTDyldMemoryManager::getSymbolAddressInProcess(const std::string &Name) { there is reference to morestack: #if defined(__i386__) || defined(__x86_64__) // __morestack lives in libgcc, a static library. if (&__morestack && Name == "__morestack") return (uint64_t)&__morestack; #endif #endif // __linux__ && __GLIBC__ On Mon, Oct 3,

On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 5:24 PM, Xinliang David Li <xinliangli at gmail.com> wrote: > Small repro: > > __attribute__((weak)) int hello_world(); > > int test() { > if (hello_world) > return hello_world(); > return 0; > } > > $ clang -fuse-ld=gold -flto=thin -O2 -shared -fPIC -o libmore.so more.c > $ objdump -t libmore.so |grep hello >

No worries, thanks for the update. Teresa On Mon, Sep 26, 2016, 7:16 AM Carsten Mattner <carstenmattner at gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 3:52 PM, Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google.com> > wrote: > > > > ThinLTO needs to create as many temporary files as there are input > > modules to the link. From your 'ls' below, it doesn't look