Run instruction profiling pass at the start of the pipeline for the legacy pass manager #61046
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
rdar://77217762
hamishknight
force-pushed
the
cant-pass-this-up
branch
from
c95863d to
628cffe
Compare
Ensure that LLVM doesn't optimize out a profiler increment before lowering it, ensuring its name gets recorded.
hamishknight
force-pushed
the
cant-pass-this-up
branch
from
628cffe to
00217ae
Compare
|
@swift-ci please test |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This is already fixed for the new pass manager, add a test case and apply the fix to the legacy pass manager too (cherry-pick of #38197). This prevents LLVM from optimizing out a profiler increment before lowering it, ensuring that we still emit name data for the coverage mapping, even if the increment itself gets optimized out.
This doesn't help in cases where the SIL optimizer optimizes out a profiler increment, but in that case we decline to emit the coverage mapping, so the result is lost coverage instead of a malformed mapping. I'm tracking fixing that in rdar://99813754.
rdar://77217762