[llvm-dev] RFC: LTO should use -disable-llvm-verifier

Wed Sep 16 10:50:04 PDT 2015

> On Sep 16, 2015, at 10:39 AM, Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google.com> wrote:
> 
> On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 10:09 AM, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> On Sep 16, 2015, at 9:45 AM, Teresa Johnson via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>> On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 7:47 AM, Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google.com> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 3:31 PM, Duncan P. N. Exon Smith via llvm-dev
>>>> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On 2015-Sep-02, at 19:31, Peter Collingbourne <peter at pcc.me.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Thu, Sep 03, 2015 at 01:10:42AM +0000, Eric Christopher wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 10:43 AM Duncan P. N. Exon Smith <
>>>>>>> dexonsmith at apple.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> On 2015-Aug-31, at 18:09, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 5:50 PM Duncan P. N. Exon Smith <
>>>>>>>> dexonsmith at apple.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> On 2015-Aug-31, at 12:21, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Yep. This is where I was going :)
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Glad I found consensus, but I want to double-check that this makes
>>>>>>>>> sense to add to the driver.  I didn't quite think through the
>>>>>>>>> implications myself.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Since the driver doesn't know if there's any bitcode, or if LTO is
>>>>>>>>> going to be invoked, it seems like I'll have to change the noasserts
>>>>>>>>> driver to *always* pass the option to the linker just in case we are
>>>>>>>>> doing LTO.  Is this reasonable?
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Also, I realized that passing `-mllvm -disable-llvm-verifier` to ld64
>>>>>>>>> is redundant... so I'm thinking `-mllvm -disable-verify`.  Make
>>>>>>>>> sense?
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> *sigh* Reasons to hate the driver interface again...
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> I guess this is ok. Could possibly add it to the existing terrible
>>>>>>>> "enable this pass" interface on liblto as well.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> The linker doesn't know whether clang was built with asserts, though.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> We could just make it implicit: move the decision to libLTO itself.  Given
>>>>>>>> that clang and libLTO.dylib are different executables anyway -- and you
>>>>>>>> might be interposing an asserts libLTO.dylib to use with an installed clang
>>>>>>>> -- maybe it's even better?
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> *nod* We could do that. Seems better than the alternative.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> +1
>>>>> 
>>>>> Finally got back to this.  Done in r247729.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I didn't modify gold-plugin.cpp, as I don't have a good way to test it,
>>>>> but someone else should be able to do it pretty easily.
>>>> 
>>>> I can do this for gold (presumably also controlled via an option, but
>>>> set default based on NDEBUG).
>>>> 
>>>> Couple questions:
>>>> - For your patch the default is set based on NDEBUG for lto.cpp, but
>>>> in llvm-lto it always defaults to false. Is that intentional?
>>> 
>>> After writing a test for my gold-plugin changes, I think I know the
>>> answer to the above question. It is presumably because you don't want
>>> the behavior of new test ./test/LTO/X86/disable-verify.ll which uses
>>> llvm-lto to change based on whether the compiler is built NDEBUG or
>>> not, since you are also testing the default behavior without
>>> -disable-verify in this test.
>>> 
>>> Since gold-plugin isn't a testing tool, I think we do want the default
>>> controlled by NDEBUG. So presumably my new gold-plugin-based test
>>> cannot test the default behavior, just the behavior with the new
>>> disable-verify plugin option.
>> 
>> Note sure if it would help but you can add “REQUIRE: assert” in a test to only run it when NDEBUG is enabled.
> 
> Wouldn't asserts be off generally in NDEBUG mode? And if so does the
> "assert" check here always imply !NDEBUG? If so, that would do the
> trick.

Yes, I slipped, I meant “enabled” as when “assertions are enabled”, so NDEBUG is unset.

> 
> Also, is there documentation on the REQUIRE values? I couldn't find
> any under http://llvm.org/docs/TestingGuide.html

I don’t know where is it documented (if any), but AFAIK most “features” are defined programmatically in test/lit.cfg:

$ grep feature test/lit.cfg 
    config.available_features.add('shell')
    config.available_features.add('can-execute')
    config.available_features.add('loadable_module')
    config.available_features.add("asan")
    config.available_features.add("msan")
    config.available_features.add("ubsan")
    config.available_features.add("not_ubsan")
    config.available_features.add("long_tests")
    config.available_features.add("object-emission")
    config.available_features.add("zlib")
    config.available_features.add("nozlib")
    config.available_features.add("default_triple")
    config.available_features.add("native")
        config.available_features.add('ld_emu_elf32ppc')
    config.available_features.add('ld_plugin')
    config.available_features.add('ld64_plugin')
    config.available_features.add('asserts')
        config.available_features.add('fma3')
    config.available_features.add('debug_frame')

It seems that there are some features that are native to lit: “valgrind” and “vg_leak”.

— 
Mehdi

> 
> Thanks,
> Teresa
> 
>> 
>> There is no “REQUIRE: noassert” though.
>> 
>> 
>> —
>> Mehdi
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> Teresa
>>> 
>>>> - You mentioned that the verifier was currently being run 3 times: (1)
>>>> after parsing, (2) at the beginning of the optimization pipeline, and
>>>> (3) at the end of it. It looks to me like (1) is done via the
>>>> createVerifierPass() added in
>>>> LTOCodeGenerator::applyScopeRestrictions(). However, gold does not use
>>>> LTOCodeGenerator, and I don't see it explicitly adding an initial
>>>> createVerifierPass. So it looks like for gold it is only being called
>>>> twice (beginning of optimization pipeline and at the end). So I think
>>>> for gold I need to leave VerifyInput on the pass manager builder set
>>>> to true unconditionally in order to get an initial round of input
>>>> verification. Does that sound right?
>>>> 
>>>> Teresa
>>>> 
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>>>>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
>>>>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> --
>>>> Teresa Johnson | Software Engineer | tejohnson at google.com | 408-460-2413
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> --
>>> Teresa Johnson | Software Engineer | tejohnson at google.com | 408-460-2413
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
>>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Teresa Johnson | Software Engineer | tejohnson at google.com | 408-460-2413