https://github.com/aaupov edited 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
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
be
aaupov wrote:
> 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 m
https://github.com/aaupov closed 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
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,
aaupov wrote:
The entries for deleted basic blocks won't participate in
`BAT::getFallthroughsInTrace` because trace boundary is looked up by output
offsets:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/098c6dfa8157681699a71fce9e3d94515e66311f/bolt/lib/Profile/BoltAddressTranslation.cpp#L529-L540
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
