similar to: GSoC2019 - DebugInfo should not effect codegen

Hi, I am sharing the proposal [0] which gives a brief introduction for the implementation of the LLVM DI Checker utility. On a very high level, it is a pair of LLVM (IR) Passes that check the preservation of the original debug info in the optimizations. There are options controlling the passes, that could be invoked from ``clang`` as well as from ``opt`` level. By testing the utility on the

Hi Vedant, Thanks a lot for your comments! >It looks like a lot of the new infrastructure introduced here <https://github.com/djolertrk/llvm-di-checker/commit/9d26ac2557c584f6cf82ac5535fc47f8bd267a27> consists of logic copied from the debugify implementation. Why is introducing a new pair of passes better than extending the ones we have? The core infrastructure needed to track

Hi Nuno and Devs, My name is Hideto Ueno and I'm a 3rd-year cs student at the University of Tokyo, Japan. I’m very interested in gsoc project “Improve function attribute inference” and I have a question about this. I’m now reading llvm/Transforms/IPO/FunctionAttrs.cpp and relevant code because I thought the current algorithm is implemented there. Are there any other files closely related to

Hello everyone! We are working on writing a paper about testing the reliability of C compilers by using Csmith (a random C99 program generator). A previous testing effort, using Csmith, found 202 LLVM bugs, which represented 2% of all reported bugs at that time (PDF: https://www.flux.utah.edu/download?uid=114 <https://www.flux.utah.edu/download?uid=114>): . However, after this paper was

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

> 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, 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 David, Thanks for your reply. I find that I need to add some new types of profile data that are specific to JIT environment like Function Ordering. Function Ordering is similar to dynamic call graph which records the execution of functions at runtime along with the order in which they are called. Eg: Suppose they are 5 functions (F1..F5). F1 calls other functions in the order described

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 { >

I'm still relatively new to llvm, good to know these errors are from CodeGen. On 03/03/19 10:49 AM, Tim Northover wrote: > On Sat, 2 Mar 2019 at 21:00, preejackie via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> Could you please explain how you are using this? like commands >> >> When I run this IR in opt, it doesn't throw any errors. > The error

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);

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. +

Thanks, Vedant. Yes, we have done a lot of testing of Clang/LLVM (and GCC) in the past several years (more details at https://people.inf.ethz.ch/suz/emi/index.html): [GCC/LLVM bugs: *1,602* (total) / *1,007* (fixed)] [Reports: GCC (link1 <http://tinyurl.com/ojzdt78>, link2 <http://tinyurl.com/oxlkmjc>, link3 <http://tinyurl.com/jd3jnl3>, link4

Hi all, I'm looking for some program analysis techniques which help me to find potential functions to execute next, from the current executing function. I want to decision based on compile time information. I consider LLVM IR is too low-level to make such analysis. So, I using call graph representation of module. I figured out the probability of function which execute next based on the

Introduction ============ `SROA' is an early stage pass running at the very beginning of the pipeline in `-O{1,2,3}'. Greg Bedwell's report from his DExTer tool shows SROA on function as one of the major culprits of Debug Info loss. With debugify-each partially done I tried testing this on the amalgamated sqlite source. The steps are as follows: ,---- | # generate

Hi all, Google Season of Docs is a program to improve the documentation of Open Source Organizations, You can find more details here : Season of Docs. <https://developers.google.com/season-of-docs/> I'm sharing because i think that LLVM Community may be interested and get benefit from it. Thank you! -- Have a great day! PreeJackie -------------- next part -------------- An HTML

Hi David! Thanks for reaching out, the codegen part of the tutorial is fine, but when I try to generate the object code file, it throws segfault. Also please note that I'm using release build of llvm, actually I don't know whether that is the root cause or not. I also run through valgrind, it seems like a invalid read from stack. |||Error Summary: | |1 errors in context 1 of 1:

Hi all, I need to do dynamic profiling in ORC JIT between the runs. Is it possible to re-use parts of the static pgo code in llvm for the purpose given that JIT uses llvm codegen. Or I need to write my own implementation to support profile guide optimization in JIT ? Please tell me if you want information. -- Have a great day! PreeJackie -------------- next part -------------- An HTML

You may also be interested in the following resources on compilers correctness (articles, software, and talks -- from the general topics to the ones specifically focused on testing, validation, and verification): https://github.com/MattPD/cpplinks/blob/master/compilers.correctness.md Best regards, Matt P. Dziubinski On 12/7/2018 20:19, Philip Reames via llvm-dev wrote: > There's also