similar to: Code coverage for member functions that are defined inside the class

Hi! I am trying to get a combined coverage report from multiple executables. Looking at earlier discussions [1, 2], it looks like this is supposed to work. I am having some difficulty getting this to work as I would expect it to work, however. Following is a simple case to explain: ////////// shared.h #include <string> void Print1(const std::string& msg); void Print2(const

Hi Sadrul, > On Mar 8, 2018, at 7:40 PM, Sadrul Chowdhury via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Hi! I am trying to get a combined coverage report from multiple > executables. Looking at earlier discussions [1, 2], it looks like this > is supposed to work. I am having some difficulty getting this to work > as I would expect it to work, however. Following is

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

Hi all, I'd liked to get your thoughts on possibly adding a generic key-value store to the profile data formats for 'metadata'. Some potential uses cases: *I. Profile Features* The most basic use could be as a central repository for internal bits of housekeeping information about the profile data. For example, to differentiate between FE and IR instrumentation:

On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 11:41 AM, Xinliang David Li <davidxl at google.com> wrote: > Tagging profile data with such information is generally useful. My > thoughts are > > 1) such information is probably not needed to be stored in raw format > profile data -- so no runtime changes are needed -- only llvm-profdata > and indexed format need to be enhanced to support this.

Hi Diego, thanks for clarifying the difference between the two formats. I have noticed the new note in the "Sample Profile Format" section of the Clang guide clarifying that it is different from the coverage format. So, my further question is... Am I right in understanding that both formats can be used for PGO purposes then? I have tried the following, as in the Clang user guide: $

Hi David, This is wonderful data and demonstrates the viability of this feature. I think this has alleviated the concerns regarding file locking. As far as the implementation of the feature, I think we will probably want the following incremental steps: a) implement the core merging logic and add to buffer API a primitive for merging two buffers b) implement the file system glue to extend this

On 6/18/2017 3:51 PM, Vedant Kumar wrote: >> My experience: >> >> 1. You have to specify -DLLVM_USE_LINKER=gold (or maybe lld works; I >> didn't try). If you link with binutils ld, the program will generate >> broken profile information. Apparently, the linked binary is missing >> the __llvm_prf_names section. This took me half a day to figure out.

On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 11:16 AM, Dario Domizioli <dario.domizioli at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > I am a bit confused about the documentation of the format of the profile > data file. > > The Clang user guide here describes it as an ASCII text file: > http://clang.llvm.org/docs/UsersManual.html#sample-profile-format > > Whereas the posts above and the

I've started looking at the state of code coverage recently; we figured LLVM itself would be a good test to figure out how mature it is, so I gave it a shot. My experience: 1. You have to specify -DLLVM_USE_LINKER=gold (or maybe lld works; I didn't try). If you link with binutils ld, the program will generate broken profile information. Apparently, the linked binary is missing the

Hi all, I am working on adding PGO to LDC (LLVM D Compiler). The current implementation 1) uses LLVM's InstrProf pass to generate an instrumented executable 2) links to compiler-rt/lib/profile for the runtime functionality to write a raw profile data file 3) uses llvm-profdata to merge profile data and convert from profraw to profdata format 4) uses llvm::IndexedInstrProfReader to read-in

On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 3:41 PM, Vedant Kumar <vsk at apple.com> wrote: > > > On May 23, 2016, at 8:56 PM, Xinliang David Li <davidxl at google.com> > wrote: > > > > On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 8:23 PM, Sean Silva <chisophugis at gmail.com> > wrote: > > Jake and I have been integrating IRPGO on PS4, and we've identified 3 > remaining work

+ 1 to Sean's suggestion of using a wrapper script to call profdata merge. David, does that work for your use case? Some inline comments --- > On Feb 28, 2016, at 10:45 AM, Mehdi Amini via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> >> On Feb 28, 2016, at 12:46 AM, Xinliang David Li via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> >>

> On May 23, 2016, at 8:56 PM, Xinliang David Li <davidxl at google.com> wrote: > > On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 8:23 PM, Sean Silva <chisophugis at gmail.com> wrote: > Jake and I have been integrating IRPGO on PS4, and we've identified 3 remaining work items. > > Sean, thanks for the write up. It matches very well with what we think as well. + 1 > - Driver

> On May 24, 2016, at 5:21 PM, Sean Silva <chisophugis at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 3:41 PM, Vedant Kumar <vsk at apple.com <mailto:vsk at apple.com>> wrote: > > > On May 23, 2016, at 8:56 PM, Xinliang David Li <davidxl at google.com <mailto:davidxl at google.com>> wrote: > > > > On Mon, May 23, 2016 at

Hello, Our goals for the code coverage BoF (10/19) were to find areas where we can improve the coverage tooling, and to learn more about how coverage is used. I'd like to thank all of the attendees for their input and for making the BoF productive. Special thanks to Mandeep Grang, who volunteered as a mic runner at the last minute. In this email I'll share my (rough) notes and outline

On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 5:54 PM, <vsk at apple.com> wrote: > Problem > ------- > > Instrumentation for PGO and frontend-based coverage places a large amount > of > data in object files, even though the majority of this data is not needed > at > run-time. All the data is needlessly duplicated while generating archives, > and > again while linking. PGO name data

On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 6:50 PM, Sean Silva <chisophugis at gmail.com> wrote: > I have thought about this issue too, in the context of games. We may want > to turn profiling only for certain frames (essentially, this is many small > profile runs). > > However, I have not seen it demonstrated that this kind of refined data > collection will actually improve PGO results in

Hi all, I think using code coverage on baremetal has come up once or twice on llvmdev, but I don't think anyone has actually written up how the workflow works, or what issues come up.  This description is based on work done together with my colleague Weiming Zhao. By "baremetal" here, I mean an embedded environment without an operating system.  We specifically used a ARM target

> On Feb 28, 2016, at 12:46 AM, Xinliang David Li via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Justin, looks like there is some misunderstanding in my email. I want to clarify it here first: > > 1) I am not proposing changing the default profile dumping model as used today. The online merging is totally optional; > 2) the on-line profile merging is not doing