[LLVMdev] global control flow graph at machine code level

Florian Brandner flbr at imm.dtu.dk
Thu Dec 20 05:14:50 PST 2012

Hi Abhishek,

I finally got some time to try the approach I proposed in July in our compiler 
(see https://github.com/t-crest/patmos-llvm). I extended the MachineModuleInfo
and MachineFunctionAnalysis machinery to support module passes at the 
codegen-level. So far, it is tested using a simple pass that constructs the call 
graph at the machine-level. It appears to work, i.e., the generated .s files 
are identical and all our tests run correctly (i.e., MiBench).

I tried to avoid touching the LLVM core-infrastructure as much as possible, so
this patch is intended as a starting point for those who would like to do 
something similar (or for a discussion on how to integrate this properly into 
mainline). The attached patch contains the LLVM-specific bits only.


Florian Brandner
Embedded Systems Engineering Group
Department of Informatics and Mathematical Modeling
DTU Informatics
Technical University of Denmark
Richard Petersens Plads
Building 322, room 206
2800 Lyngby

phone: +45 45255223
web: http://www.imm.dtu.dk/~flbr/
email: flbr at imm.dtu.dk

On Monday, July 30, 2012 11:06:24 Florian Brandner wrote:
> Hi Abhishek,
> On Sunday, July 29, 2012 18:32:11 AbhishekR wrote:
> > It seems like I may have to modify the way MachineFunction is instantiated in MachineFunctionAnalysis. Instead of doing it per Function, it may have to be done for the entire Module by instantiating MachineFunction objects for every Function inside the Module. This might require major changes to the PassManager framework as well. Is there some work in this direction and code that someone can share? Or an alternative solution?
> yes, the MachineFunctionAnalysis creates the MachineFunctions. unfortunately 
> a MachineFunction is destroyed along the MachineFunctionAnalysis that created 
> it. this happens for instance when you schedule a module pass (where you could 
> operate on the global control-flow) somewhere during code generation.
> A workaround could be to modify the MachineFunctionAnalysis such that it 
> stores the MachineFunction in a look-up table inside the MachineModuleInfo 
> instead of destroying it before your module pass is run. once your module 
> pass is finished, a new MachineFunctionAnalysis is scheduled by the pass 
> manager. Now, instead of creating a new function, you could check the look-up 
> table of the MachineModuleInfo to get the original MachineFunction.
> it does not appear to be a very complicated change, but there might be some
> dirty details that could make this approach hard to implement, e.g., information 
> stored with the MachineFunctionAnalysis itself. you could move this information 
> to a new class and see the MachineFunctionAnalysis as a wrapper to this class.
> a nice property of this solution is that code generation still proceeds on a 
> per-function-basis, unless you explicitly insert a module pass. 
> another problem is, that there is little (or no) support to construct the 
> global control-flow from the machine code. for instance, the call graph is 
> based on LLVM-IR. depending on the target architecture, you might have call 
> sites in the machine code that were not visible in the LLVM-IR, e.g., when you 
> implement floating point operations using library calls. so there might be some
> extra work needed to get this infrastructure too.
> I have not yet worked on this yet, but I plan to implement something like this
> at some point sooner or later. if you find another (better) solution let me 
> know.
> best,
> Florian

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: codegen-modulepasses.diff
Type: text/x-patch
Size: 4411 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20121220/ee55021a/attachment.bin>

More information about the llvm-dev mailing list