[Lldb-commits] [clang] [libcxx] [lldb] [llvm] [mlir] [BOLT][BAT] Add entries for deleted basic blocks (PR #91906)
rafaelauler wrote: Oh I see, thanks! https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/91906 ___ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
[Lldb-commits] [clang] [libcxx] [lldb] [llvm] [mlir] [BOLT][BAT] Add entries for deleted basic blocks (PR #91906)
rafaelauler wrote: Thanks for the detailed explanation. So essentially the output offset is not important because these deleted blocks are only useful for their input offset, which will be used in BoltAddressTranslation::getFallthroughsInTrace() to create traffic in this to-be deleted block, is that right? https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/91906 ___ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
[Lldb-commits] [clang] [libcxx] [lldb] [llvm] [mlir] [BOLT][BAT] Add entries for deleted basic blocks (PR #91906)
https://github.com/rafaelauler approved this pull request. Could you elaborate a bit better on why do we need a deleted block to be present in the table? My memory fails me, aren't we using the translation table just to map samples collected on the bolted binary? Where do the deleted blocks become a problem? Other than the motivation, the implementation itself looks good to me. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/91906 ___ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
[Lldb-commits] [llvm] [clang] [lldb] [libcxx] [libc] [clang-tools-extra] [mlir] [BOLT][NFC] Print BAT section size (PR #76897)
https://github.com/rafaelauler approved this pull request. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/76897 ___ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
