[Lldb-commits] [clang] [libcxx] [lldb] [llvm] [mlir] [BOLT][BAT] Add entries for deleted basic blocks (PR #91906)

2024-05-24 Thread Rafael Auler via lldb-commits
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)

2024-05-24 Thread Rafael Auler via lldb-commits
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,

[Lldb-commits] [clang] [libcxx] [lldb] [llvm] [mlir] [BOLT][BAT] Add entries for deleted basic blocks (PR #91906)

2024-05-21 Thread Rafael Auler via lldb-commits
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

[Lldb-commits] [llvm] [clang] [lldb] [libcxx] [libc] [clang-tools-extra] [mlir] [BOLT][NFC] Print BAT section size (PR #76897)

2024-01-11 Thread Rafael Auler via lldb-commits
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