[llvm-dev] ThinLTO naming scheme for promoted local functions
Teresa Johnson via llvm-dev
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Wed Apr 6 22:14:07 PDT 2016
On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 9:40 PM, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> wrote:
> On Apr 6, 2016, at 9:32 PM, Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 1:46 PM, Peter Collingbourne <peter at pcc.me.uk>
>> On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 1:33 PM, Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google.com>
>>> On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 12:18 PM, Peter Collingbourne <peter at pcc.me.uk>
>>>> Hi David,
>>>> We've been considering changing the naming scheme for promoted local
>>>> functions in ThinLTO. Currently we just prepend the file name, but that
>>>> isn't really sound for a number of reasons (e.g. you can have the same file
>>>> name in different directories). The alternative we've been thinking about
>>>> is to use the hash of all external names in the module, as that is
>>>> guaranteed to be unique within a linkage unit (otherwise the linker would
>>>> We currently (intentionally, I believe) use the same naming scheme for
>>>> promoting local functions as we do for PGO,
>>> No, we don't use this naming scheme for ThinLTO promotion. It is only
>>> used for computation of the MD5 hash used in the function index (so that
>>> when we want to import a function referenced by indirect call profile info
>>> which uses this MD5 name we can find its summary).
>>> The promotion name is based off a unique module identifier assigned at
>>> Thin-link time (when the combined index is generated and all bitcode files
>>> are seen).
>> I see. I suppose that if we did form promotion names using external name
>> hashes, we could soundly compile parts of the object file to native code at
>> compile time, if we could somehow determine ahead of time that such
>> compilation would be safe. I'm working on a proposal along those lines that
>> I hope to share soon.
> I mentioned this verbally to Peter, but for the sake of discussion, using
> this proposed renaming scheme also has the advantage that the renaming does
> not depend on the link order. The current ThinLTO renaming depends on the
> order the bitcode files are seen on the link line. That makes it harder to
> share the same resulting native object file between links into diffferent
> binaries, since the ThinLTO-link-assigned module ID will depend on the link
> ordering. Of course, you would also need to determine that the import set
> is the same to reuse an existing native object file from another build, but
> this helps reduce the barrier.
> Note that this is orthogonal to whether the new renaming scheme is done in
> the ThinLTO backends (current) or moved to the compile step (part of what
> Peter is proposing for early native code generation).
> Doing this new renaming in the ThinLTO backend (rather than moving it up
> to the compile step) just requires recording this hash value in the
> combined index's module symbol table (where the module path and id are
> currently held).
> It is not clear to me why you need the hash value in the combined index?
> Can’t you compute it from the summary? (by changing the definition from the
> "hash of public function names” to “hash of public function GUID”).
Only if the PGO naming scheme is changed accordingly. Otherwise the summary
entries need to continue using the global ID based hash (want to match PGO
for indirect call importing).
> I was working on changing the naming to use the “module hash” itself as a
> suffix, but this hash (from global function name) seems as good for this
Teresa Johnson | Software Engineer | tejohnson at google.com | 408-460-2413
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the llvm-dev