similar to: truncating aggregation output

Hello dtrace-discuss, Sometimes I want to run a script for some time and every n second output N top entries. trunc() isn''t suitable here as it also removed keys/values. I want it ''coz over time if I use sum() entries which are normally truncated can actually get to top over a time. Maybe printa() extension, something like: printa(@b[10]) - to output top 10? --

Howdy, Is there a method to get the number of elements in an aggregation? Are the results stored in an aggregation guaranteed to be in any type of order? Thanks for any insight, - Ryan -- UNIX Administrator http://daemons.net/~matty

Hi Bryan, > Does that sit well with everyone? Seems fine to me. Just revisiting one of Dragan''s points, though (sorry if I missed the answer) - is there a reason for making this global (via a #pragma) rather than, say, simply providing two functions which print in the different orders? e.g. printa() for sort by sample, printak() for sort by key. My reason for wanting to do both in

Hi Teresa, Thank you so much for your reply! I am on vacation until the end of this week and on EuroLLVM next week, so I have to apologize in advance that my replies are delayed. >>Right - see my reply on this from last night, at the very least the ThinLTO importing thresholds will need retuning if we will >>perform optimizations like unrolling/vectorization/etc that tend to

Hi Steven and Peter, I think we resolved all the misunderstanding/concerns that we had with the proposal and decided that we don’t have to implement heavy-weight synchronization solutions (such as read-write locks, etc). Lightweight solution is expected to work on MacOS and Windows (however, there might be issues with Windows supporting non-NTFS file systems). There are two options for the

See attached some quick slides (backup from the dev meeting talk) about the pass pipeline. -- Mehdi Le mer. 11 avr. 2018 à 12:18, Mehdi AMINI <joker.eph at gmail.com> a écrit : > > > Le mer. 11 avr. 2018 à 11:20, <katya.romanova at sony.com> a écrit : > >> >> >> >> >> *From:* Mehdi AMINI <joker.eph at gmail.com> >> *Sent:*

Le mer. 11 avr. 2018 à 11:20, <katya.romanova at sony.com> a écrit : > > > > > *From:* Mehdi AMINI <joker.eph at gmail.com> > *Sent:* Tuesday, April 10, 2018 11:53 PM > *To:* Romanova, Katya <katya.romanova at sony.com> > *Cc:* David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com>; Teresa Johnson < > tejohnson at google.com>; llvm-dev <llvm-dev at

From: Mehdi AMINI <joker.eph at gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2018 11:53 PM To: Romanova, Katya <katya.romanova at sony.com> Cc: David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com>; Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google.com>; llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] exploring possibilities for unifying ThinLTO and FullLTO frontend + initial optimization

On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 7:34 PM, <katya.romanova at sony.com> wrote: > Hi Peter, > > > > Thank you for the clarification J. > > > > I’m sure you have a very good understanding of how much efforts it will > take to write a patch for legacy C LTO to implement caching the same way > it’s done in new C++ LTO API. How easy/difficult do you think it will be >

Hi Peter, Thank you for the clarification ☺. I’m sure you have a very good understanding of how much efforts it will take to write a patch for legacy C LTO to implement caching the same way it’s done in new C++ LTO API. How easy/difficult do you think it will be (very roughly, in LOC)? Do you anticipate that a lot of existing legacy C LTO infrastructure will have to be rewritten? Could this also

Le mar. 10 avr. 2018 à 23:18, <katya.romanova at sony.com> a écrit : > Hi Mehdi, > > > > Awesome! It’s a very clear design. The only question left is which > pipeline to choose for unified compile-phase optimization pipeline. > > - ThinLTO compile-phase pipeline? It might very negatively affect > compile-time and the memory footprint for FullLTO link-phase.

On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 11:52 PM, Mehdi AMINI <joker.eph at gmail.com> wrote: > > > Le mar. 10 avr. 2018 à 23:18, <katya.romanova at sony.com> a écrit : > >> Hi Mehdi, >> >> >> >> Awesome! It’s a very clear design. The only question left is which >> pipeline to choose for unified compile-phase optimization pipeline. >> >> -

I think for ld64, you can mix thinLTO and fullLTO files and ld64 is going to compile them separately and combine the result. (Mehdi can confirm). I think this is aligned with the fact that whether to use full or thin LTO is decided during clang invocation, not linker invocation. I am not against any of the model, but I think we need to do some research before making the effort to switch the model.

> On Mar 26, 2018, at 6:03 PM, katya.romanova at sony.com wrote: > > Hi Steven, > Look at my replies inline (below your comments). > Katya. > > From: stevenwu at apple.com <mailto:stevenwu at apple.com> <stevenwu at apple.com <mailto:stevenwu at apple.com>> > Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 4:46 PM > To: Romanova, Katya <katya.romanova at sony.com

Hi Mehdi, Awesome! It’s a very clear design. The only question left is which pipeline to choose for unified compile-phase optimization pipeline. - ThinLTO compile-phase pipeline? It might very negatively affect compile-time and the memory footprint for FullLTO link-phase. That was the reason why so many optimization were moved from the link-phase to the parallel compile-phase for FullLTO

On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 6:03 PM, <katya.romanova at sony.com> wrote: > Hi Steven, > > Look at my replies inline (below your comments). > > Katya. > > > > *From:* stevenwu at apple.com <stevenwu at apple.com> > *Sent:* Thursday, March 22, 2018 4:46 PM > *To:* Romanova, Katya <katya.romanova at sony.com> > *Cc:* Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at

Is there a reason why the alignment of the .text section should be 4 when we are optimizing for size (-Os or -Oz)? Note that when are optimizing for size, the symbols inside .text section don't have any alignment constraints. Alignment=4 for .text with the unaligned symbols inside this section prevent our linker from de-duplicating functions. Could the alignment of the .text section be

Hello, I have several low priority UBSan questions... (1) Is there a way for UBSan to print its output to a file that the user specified (e.g. via option) instead of dumping everything on stderr? (2) Out of curiosity, why is the name of the option for printing the stacktrace spelled "UBSAN_OPTIONS=print_stacktrace=1", though the allowed value is 1? Since the only one value is

Hi David, Thank you so much for your reply! >> You're dealing with a situation where you are shipped BC files offline and then do one, or multiple builds with these BC files? Yes, that’s exactly the case. >> If the scenario was more like a naive build: Multiple BC files generated on a single (multi-core/threaded) machine (but some Thin, some >> Full) & then fed to the

Hello, LLVM generates two additional instructions for 128->256 bit typecasts (e.g. _mm256_castsi128_si256()) to clear out the upper 128 bits of YMM register corresponding to source XMM register. vxorps xmm2,xmm2,xmm2 vinsertf128 ymm0,ymm2,xmm0,0x0 Most of the industry-standard C/C++ compilers (GCC, Intel's compiler, Visual Studio compiler) don't generate any extra moves