[llvm-dev] LTO and intrinsics mangling

[Rafael Espíndola via llvm-dev]

On 18 April 2016 at 19:22, Philip Reames via llvm-dev
<llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
>
> On 04/18/2016 09:45 AM, Artur Pilipenko via llvm-dev wrote:
>
> In the current mangling scheme for overloaded intrinsics we include
> overloaded type names in the intrinsic name. For example:
>
> %struct.foobar = type { i32 }
> declare <4 x %struct.foobar*> @llvm.masked.load.v4p0struct.foobar(<4 x
> %struct.foobar*>*, i32, <4 x i1>, <4 x %struct.foobar*>)
>
> Verifier checks that an overloaded intrinsic name matches with its
> signature.
>
> When different modules are loaded in LTO configuration with the same
> LLVMContext, types with the same name from different modules are renamed so
> their names are unique (%struct.foobar in the second module becomes
> %struct.foobar.0). After renaming intrinsic names and signatures can become
> inconsistent.
>
> This seems like a clear bug in the module loading.  If we're changing type
> names, we need to change the intrinsic signatures as well.
>
>
> Usually it slips unnoticed because we don't verify individual modules and
> eventually map isomorphic types to a single type. So isomorphic types get
> their original names. Although in some cases it causes problems.
>
> Initially I came across the problem with my recent change which added an
> overloaded type to the masked load/store intrinsics
> (http://reviews.llvm.org/D17270). The discrepancy between the name and the
> signature triggers auto-upgrade bit from my patch converting an incorrect
> mangling to the correct one. But later after remapping of isomorphic types
> when we return to the original type name this “updated" intrinsic name
> become invalid.
>
> Another way to trigger the problem is to have different types with the same
> name in different modules. Corresponding test case is attached. In this case
> types in different modules will be renamed but the intrinsics from different
> modules will have the same name which will be caught by verifier.
>
> As a possible solution we can use AutoUpgrade to handle the situation when
> the name of the intrinsic doesn't match with its signature. In such cases we
> have to rename the intrinsic. Then during linking if we map some isomorphic
> types we have to update intrinsics names. To do that we have to teach
> IRMover to update intrinsics signatures according to the types mapping.
>
> Does this sound reasonable? Are there any other alternatives?
>
> Given our current intrinsic naming scheme, the approach you've described
> seems entirely reasonable.
>
> An alternate scheme would be to make the intrinsic signatures insensitive to
> the struct naming.  (That was probably a bad idea on my part to start with,
> sorry!)  I would argue that we should not block your original change on a
> re-architecting effort here.

I sorry I missed this when it first went in. In general the name of
llvm types should not be significant. What was the motivation for
having it in the name of the intrinsic? Could we change to using

declare <4 x %struct.foo*> @llvm.masked.load.arbitrary_suffix1(<4 x
%struct.foo*>*, i32, <4 x i1>, <4 x %struct.foo*>)

declare <4 x %struct.bar*> @llvm.masked.load.arbitrary_suffix2(<4 x
%struct.bar*>*, i32, <4 x i1>, <4 x %struct.bar*>)

Cheers,
Rafael