<div dir="ltr">John,<div><br></div><div>Thanks for the pointer; I'll indeed take a look at your student's pass and supporting runtime library.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Bruce,</div><div><br></div><div>Yes, I apologize, I meant bitcode instructions. But you're right, as long as there exists a mapping between the basic blocks in the assembly and the basic blocks in the LLVM bitcode, then I should be able to use any tool that gives me assembly instruction execution counts (such as Valgrind or PIN) to find out bitcode instruction execution counts. I'm thinking I could use DWARF debug info to create such a mapping.</div><div><br></div><div>Thanks,</div><div>Steve</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 11:12 AM, Bruce Hoult <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:bruce@hoult.org" target="_blank">bruce@hoult.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">Machine instructions, yes. You didn't say bitcode instruction.<div><br></div><div>Though it amounts to the same thing, as all instructions in the same basic block have the same execution count and the basic blocks should correspond.</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div><div class="h5">On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 5:18 PM, Stephen Thomas <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:stephen.warner.thomas@gmail.com" target="_blank">stephen.warner.thomas@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br></div></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><div class="h5"><div dir="ltr">Bruce,<div><br></div><div>Can valgrind give me the execution counts for each Instruction in the LLVM bitcode?</div><div><br></div><div>Thanks,</div><div>Steve</div></div><div><div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 9:34 AM, Bruce Hoult <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:bruce@hoult.org" target="_blank">bruce@hoult.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">That seems like a job for valgrind?<div><br></div><div>Assuming you're on a supported platform, but these days that includes all the common Mac/Linux/Android platforms except ARM64.</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div><div>On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 4:08 PM, Stephen Thomas <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:stephen.warner.thomas@gmail.com" target="_blank">stephen.warner.thomas@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br></div></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><div><div dir="ltr">Hi,<div><br></div><div>I'd like a simple and fast way to collect the number of times each Instruction was executed in a given run of the application. As far as I can tell, there are a number of approaches I can take:</div><div><br></div><div>- Use PIN. This would require using DWARF debug info and Instruction debug info to attempt to map instructions in the binary to instructions in the bitcode; not 100% sure how accurate this will be.</div><div><br></div><div>- Use llvm-prof. Two questions here. First, I've seen on <a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__stackoverflow.com_questions_14617067_collecting-2Dllvm-2Dedge-2Dprofiling-2Dwith-2Dllvm-2Dprof&d=AwMFaQ&c=8hUWFZcy2Z-Za5rBPlktOQ&r=Mfk2qtn1LTDThVkh6-oGglNfMADXfJdty4_bhmuhMHA&m=HtoNbGGO3zcoVy6n3_8lqn7ZXiNnqiQKim27ER3buUQ&s=kf8XiNx6628Vrx9TCVI4rrnisNDMVf8ZcuKA6V0udhE&e=" target="_blank">Stack Overflow</a> an option to `opt` called `--insert-edge-profiling`. However, that option doesn't seem to be available in 3.6? Second, it appears that such profiling only records execution counts at the Function level, not at the individual Instruction level. Is that correct?</div><div><br></div><div>- Write a new tool similar to <a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__clang.llvm.org_docs_AddressSanitizer.html&d=AwMFaQ&c=8hUWFZcy2Z-Za5rBPlktOQ&r=Mfk2qtn1LTDThVkh6-oGglNfMADXfJdty4_bhmuhMHA&m=HtoNbGGO3zcoVy6n3_8lqn7ZXiNnqiQKim27ER3buUQ&s=B48ymTvL2IOafrTkfbB7YJl2y6OdfQtG7_I7dfiuNPU&e=" target="_blank">AddressSanitizer.</a> This may work, but seems like overkill.</div><div><br></div><div>Is there an easier way to achieve my goal that I'm missing?</div><div><br></div><div>Thanks,</div><div>Steve</div>
</div>
<br></div></div>_______________________________________________<br>
LLVM Developers mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:LLVMdev@cs.uiuc.edu" target="_blank">LLVMdev@cs.uiuc.edu</a> <a href="http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu" target="_blank">http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev" target="_blank">http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>
</blockquote></div><br></div>
<br></div></div></div></div><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><span><font color="#888888">--
<br>This message has been scanned for viruses and
<br>dangerous content by
<a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.mailscanner.info_&d=AwMFaQ&c=8hUWFZcy2Z-Za5rBPlktOQ&r=Mfk2qtn1LTDThVkh6-oGglNfMADXfJdty4_bhmuhMHA&m=xXQu-z5-WQYgrWF_tXH0EcgF34jfpdOax6WIPDYX5ac&s=otQLfTp6ef0iaeFurNKlEW-iNxj4uG0BnnG_OfaKykM&e=" target="_blank"><b>MailScanner</b></a>, and is
<br>believed to be clean.
</font></span></font></span></blockquote></div><br></div>
</blockquote></div><br></div>