Re: AutoFDO tools for GCC
On Mon, Mar 25, 2024 at 9:54 PM Eugene Rozenfeld via Gcc wrote: > > Hello, > > I've been the AutoFDO maintainer for the last 1.5 years. I've resurrected > autoprofiledbootstrap build and made a number of other fixes/improvements > (e.g., discriminator support). > > The tools for AutoFDO (create_gcov, etc.) currently live in > https://github.com/google/AutoFDO repo and GCC AutoFDO documentation points > users to that repo. That repo also has tools for LLVM AutoFDO. > https://github.com/google/AutoFDO has several submodules: > https://github.com/google/autofdo/blob/master/.gitmodules > > I got a message from Snehasish (cc'd) that google intends to migrate the > tools for LLVM to the LLVM repo and wants to archive > https://github.com/google/AutoFDO. That will be a problem for AutoFDO in GCC. > The idea to find a different home for GCC AutoFDO tools was discussed before > on this alias but this becomes more urgent now. One idea was to build these > tools from GCC repo and another was to produce gcov from perf tool directly. > Andi (cc'd) had some early unfinished prototype for latter. > > Please let me know if you have thoughts on how we should proceed. I think it makes sense for GCC specific parts to live in the GCC repository alongside gcov tools. I do wonder how much common code there is between the LLVM and the GCC tooling though and whether it makes sense to keep it common (and working with both frontends)? The pragmatic solution would have been to fork the repo on github to a place not within the google group ... Richard. > Thanks, > > Eugene
Building Single Tree for a Specific Set of CFLAGS
Hi For RTEMS, we normally build a multilib'ed gcc+newlib, but I have a case where the CPU model is something not covered by our multilibs and not one we are keen to add. I've looked around but not found anything that makes me feel confident. What's the magic for building a gcc+newlib with a single set of libraries that are built for a specific CPU CFLAGS? I am trying --disable-multlibs on the gcc configure and adding CFLAGS_FOR_TARGET to make. Advice appreciated. Thanks. --joel
Re: AutoFDO tools for GCC
On Tue, Mar 26, 2024 at 08:45:22AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote: > On Mon, Mar 25, 2024 at 9:54 PM Eugene Rozenfeld via Gcc > wrote: > > > > Hello, > > > > I've been the AutoFDO maintainer for the last 1.5 years. I've resurrected > > autoprofiledbootstrap build and made a number of other fixes/improvements > > (e.g., discriminator support). > > > > The tools for AutoFDO (create_gcov, etc.) currently live in > > https://github.com/google/AutoFDO repo and GCC AutoFDO documentation > > points users to that repo. That repo also has tools for LLVM AutoFDO. > > https://github.com/google/AutoFDO has several submodules: > > https://github.com/google/autofdo/blob/master/.gitmodules > > > > I got a message from Snehasish (cc'd) that google intends to migrate the > > tools for LLVM to the LLVM repo and wants to archive > > https://github.com/google/AutoFDO. That will be a problem for AutoFDO in > > GCC. The idea to find a different home for GCC AutoFDO tools was discussed > > before on this alias but this becomes more urgent now. One idea was to > > build these tools from GCC repo and another was to produce gcov from perf > > tool directly. Andi (cc'd) had some early unfinished prototype for latter. > > > > Please let me know if you have thoughts on how we should proceed. > > I think it makes sense for GCC specific parts to live in the GCC > repository alongside gcov tools. I do wonder how much common code > there is > between the LLVM and the GCC tooling though and whether it makes sense > to keep it common (and working with both frontends)? The > pragmatic solution would have been to fork the repo on github to a > place not within the google group ... In tree would need convincing Google to assign the copyright. Some of the code has problems however. The main problem is that it always loads everything into memory, so you cannot do longer recording session with larger data files. Even the gcc boot strap is already pushing it on a reasonably memory sized machine. The scheme of only processing one target at a time is also quite inefficient. For systems with shared libraries and multiple binaries it would be much more efficient to do it all in one pass and write multiple gcovs, and then just let Makefiles or gcc wrapper pick. The other big issue is that the perf format keeps adding new records and their perf parser is written in a way that it always asserts on anything it doesn't understand, so there is constant breakage with new perf versions. That is fixable however (I had a patch submitted but it wasn't merged) I think what makes sense to have from the code based are profile_diff/merge etc. which are needed for scalable collection. Or perhaps it would be best if gcov just gained those functionalities. -Andi
GSoC Timeline Review
Greetings All, Hope this email finds you well. I am interested in "Extend the plugin to add checking for usage of the CPython API" project. First of all, I built the library, and now I am trying to debug it. Then, I also used Cpython in 3 demos to understand how it works. Finally, I read the uploaded patch comments to understand the codebase and file structure. I was wondering if you could review my suggested timeline? suggested Timeline: - May 1-26: - Explore Cython modules, emphasizing entry-points and bug identification. - Study analyzers, particularly cpy-analyzer, to enhance understanding. - Debug the codebase to grasp its structure and potential areas for improvement. - Focus investigation on "errors in GIL handling" and "tp_traverse errors". - Weeks 1-6: - Investigate GIL (Global Interpreter Lock) errors extensively. - Engage in discussions and develop viable solutions to address identified issues. - Weeks 7-12: - Gain insight into the functioning of the Garbage Collector. - Implement checks to mitigate traverse errors effectively. - Ensure robust error handling mechanisms are in place through thorough study and practical implementation.
