similar to: option similar to -finstrument-functions but for code blocks

Thanks Vedant, and my apologies for the delay getting back to you - work got "busy". I wasn't aware of the '-fprofile-generate' option, so thanks for point this out. I have tried running it and I can see the instrumentation hooks that it generates - I assume that there is a library I have to implement to support this, can you let me know where the source for this library

On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 2:53 PM Xinliang David Li <davidxl at google.com> wrote: > There is some misunderstanding about the intention of this flag. The > purpose of the flag is not to turn on profile instrumentation (which > already has -fprofile-instr-generate or -fprofile-generate for it), but to > select which instrumentors to use for PGO (IR or FE). I prefer fewer flags

Hi I want to write a FunctionPass to insert some code before return. Funcion: .. .. .. mov eax,[esp] cmp eax,0x12345678 je 0x12345678 ret (maybe stack will not balance) I wonder that can I get the return address at llvm ir level? I use IRBuilder to CreateICmpEQ and CreateCondBr. but I don't how to get the value of return addrss. I have found there is a Intrinsic::returnaddress. Is

Hi all, I want to implement the Xor random canary, so I have to get the return address in the prologue and epilogue of the function. In the prologue of the function, before I insert into the canary on the stack, I can get the return address by: ConstantInt* ci = llvm::ConstantInt::get(Type::getInt32Ty(RI->getContext()), 0); Value* Args1[] = {ci}; CallInst* callInst =

On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 10:21 PM, Dean Michael Berris <dberris at google.com> wrote: > > > On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 2:53 PM Xinliang David Li <davidxl at google.com> > wrote: > >> There is some misunderstanding about the intention of this flag. The >> purpose of the flag is not to turn on profile instrumentation (which >> already has

On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 1:44 AM Eric Christopher via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > On Thu, Jun 2, 2016, 6:41 PM Xinliang David Li via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> >> Sounds fine to me, though I am not a fan of using unstable in the option. >> I think a more meaningful way (that capture the essence of the

On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 3:56 PM Manman Ren <manman.ren at gmail.com> wrote: > Some background information first, then a quick summary of what we have > discussed so far! > > Background: Facebook app is one of the biggest iOS apps. Because of this, > we want the instrumentation to be as lightweight as possible in terms of > binary size, profile data size, and runtime

On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 9:10 PM Manman Ren <manman.ren at gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 4:11 PM Xinliang David Li <davidxl at google.com> > wrote: > >> >> >> On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 3:56 PM Manman Ren <manman.ren at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Some background information first, then a quick summary of what we have

I would love to see this kind of order profiling support. Using dtrace to generate function orders is actually really problematic because dtrace made tradeoffs in implementation allowing it to ignore probe execution if the performance impact is too great on the system. This can result in dtrace being non-deterministic which is not ideal for generating optimization data. Additionally if order

There is some misunderstanding about the intention of this flag. The purpose of the flag is not to turn on profile instrumentation (which already has -fprofile-instr-generate or -fprofile-generate for it), but to select which instrumentors to use for PGO (IR or FE). I prefer fewer flags too, but sharing flags for completely different purpose does not seem like the right thing to do. David On

Hi vedant, The program didn't pass the checking "OF->getArch() != Triple(Arch).getArch()" loadBinaryFormat in CoverageMappingReader.cpp and returned an error. It's because "OF->getArch()" returned null and "Triple(Arch).getArch()" returned XXXX(name of my arch). The returned value of " OF->getArch()" is decided by "

(Sorry for the 2nd email Eli, I forgot to reply-all). > I'm not following how explicitly representing the return address of a call in the IR before isel actually solves any relevant issue. We already pass the return address implicitly as an argument to every call; you can retrieve it with llvm.returnaddress if you need it. Unfortunately the @llvm.returnaddress intrinsic does not solve

Hi vedant, 1. The definition is from llvm/Supprot/ELF.h. But this machine information(e_machine) is given to compiler at lib/MC/ELFObjectWriter.cpp. I greped the whole llvm project and found that e_machine was assigned at only two files. One was lib/MC/ELFObjectWriter.cpp(there was an comment said “e_machine=target”) and the other was tools/obj2yaml/elf2yaml.cpp(GDB stopped only at the

Hi all, I want to add some functionalities to Stack protection of llvm by modifying the file StackPrtoector.cpp under llvm/src/lib/CodeGen. However, I encounter some problems here. Here is my problem: I want to call the function Intrinsic::returnaddress with the same parameter twice in a function. However, llvm will optimize this process automatically by storing the result from the first call

Hi all, I want to add some functionalities to Stack protection of llvm by modifying the file StackPrtoector.cpp under llvm/src/lib/CodeGen. However, I encounter some problems here. Here is my problem: I want to call the function Intrinsic::returnaddress with the same parameter twice in a function. However, llvm will optimize this process automatically by storing the result from the first call

> On Dec 13, 2016, at 3:46 AM, Martin J. O'Riordan via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > When either ‘-pg’ or ‘-finstrument-functions’ is used, the compiler inserts the appropriate profiling hooks. This happens prior to inlining, so the hooks remain in place. Have you tried compiling with -fprofile-generate? It enables IR-based profiling instrumentation, which

Hi all, I'm trying to support llvm-cov for a new architecture and I have successfully built compiler-rt for my arch. Following steps shown in https://clang.llvm.org/docs/SourceBasedCodeCoverage.html , I encountered an error for the last step(step of llvm-cov show). The command line was (supposed my arch is XXXX) "llvm-cov show -arch=XXXX ./foo -instr-profile=foo.profdata" and the

Hi, llvm/clang experts I need to get the branch coverage for some testing code. But i found gcov can't give a expected coverage which may count some 'hidden branch' in (See stackoverflow answer <https://stackoverflow.com/questions/42003783/lcov-gcov-branch-coverage-with-c-producing-branches-all-over-the-place>). Instead, I turn to use clang and the 'source-based code

Hi , I could see the LLVM code coverage info at the below links http://lab.llvm.org:8080/coverage/coverage-reports/clang/index.html http://llvm.org/reports/coverage/ I am interested in the branch coverage metric. I could not find the branch coverage related info . Can anyone let me know how to find it. If it is not available , I am happy to work on it, if I can get some details on why

Hi all! It seems I came across on issue with coverage mapping (http://www.llvm.org/docs/CoverageMappingFormat.html) check on: llvm revision: r228136 clang Last Changed Rev: 228121 build: Debug+Asserts OS: ubuntu 14.04 Here is simple snippets test1.c: NOT OK ================== #include <stdio.h> static int foo() { return 42; } int main() { return 0; } ================== cp src/test1.c