Prabhuk updated this revision to Diff 558151.
Prabhuk added a comment.
Rebased the patchset and addressed the compilation failures
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D105907/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D105907
Files:
llvm/include/llv
Prabhuk commandeered this revision.
Prabhuk added a reviewer: necipfazil.
Prabhuk added a comment.
Herald added a project: All.
https://discourse.llvm.org/t/rfc-computing-storing-and-restoring-conservative-call-graphs-with-llvm/58446/3?u=prabhuk
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SIN
dblaikie added a comment.
Looks like the RFC threads didn't have any discussion - I think that'll be
necessary before moving forward with/committing any work here, for what it's
worth. Perhaps some Apple folks would have some interest since they use ARM and
sanitizers a lot & probably care abou
MaskRay added a comment.
My previous feeling still applies. It seems to me that the clang driver patch
should be the last.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D105907/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D105907
necipfazil updated this revision to Diff 361091.
necipfazil marked 10 inline comments as done.
necipfazil added a comment.
Fix nits in documentation and tests
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D105907/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D10590
morehouse accepted this revision.
morehouse added a comment.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
New .callgraph section layout LGTM.
Please also address any further feedback from Fangrui.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D1
MaskRay added a comment.
High-level comments:
I'd use a bottom-up patch order. llvm patches are before clang patches.
The clang driver patch is the last - having the user-facing option requires the
functionality to be fully available.
llvm-objdump patch is orthogonal to clang patches, so its ord
necipfazil updated this revision to Diff 359592.
necipfazil added a comment.
Change call graph section layout
- Changed the call graph section layout
- Extended the example
- Updated the documentation
In the previous version, the call graph section layout was optimized for
entries with unique ty
MaskRay added inline comments.
Comment at: clang/test/Driver/clang_f_opts.c:603
+// RUN: %clang -### -fno-call-graph-section %s 2>&1 | FileCheck
-check-prefix=CHECK-NO-CALL-GRAPH-SECTION %s
+// RUN: %clang -### %s 2>&1 | FileCheck
-check-prefix=CHECK-NO-CALL-GRAPH-SECTION %s
+/
morehouse added inline comments.
Comment at: clang/test/Driver/clang_f_opts.c:603
+// RUN: %clang -### -fno-call-graph-section %s 2>&1 | FileCheck
-check-prefix=CHECK-NO-CALL-GRAPH-SECTION %s
+// RUN: %clang -### %s 2>&1 | FileCheck
-check-prefix=CHECK-NO-CALL-GRAPH-SECTION %s
necipfazil updated this revision to Diff 359010.
necipfazil marked 2 inline comments as done.
necipfazil added a comment.
- test new clang flags
- rebase
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D105907/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D105907
Fi
morehouse added a subscriber: MaskRay.
morehouse added a comment.
We should also tests for the new flags in clang/test/Driver/clang_f_opts.c.
Comment at: clang/docs/CallGraphSection.rst:58
+
+A type identifier may be repeated in different entries. The id value 0 is
+reserved fo
necipfazil updated this revision to Diff 358463.
necipfazil added a comment.
rebase, fix nits in docs
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D105907/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D105907
Files:
clang/docs/CallGraphSection.rst
clang/inclu
necipfazil added inline comments.
Comment at: clang/docs/CallGraphSection.rst:58
+
+A type identifier may be repeated in different entries. The id value 0 is
+reserved for unknown and used for indirect targets with unknown type.
morehouse wrote:
> Why would a typ
morehouse added inline comments.
Comment at: clang/docs/CallGraphSection.rst:58
+
+A type identifier may be repeated in different entries. The id value 0 is
+reserved for unknown and used for indirect targets with unknown type.
Why would a type ID be repeated?
necipfazil created this revision.
necipfazil added reviewers: rsmith, morehouse, kcc, cfe-commits, llvm-commits.
Herald added subscribers: ormris, dexonsmith, dang, hiraditya.
necipfazil requested review of this revision.
Herald added projects: clang, LLVM.
This is the first of the patch series th
16 matches
Mail list logo