[llvm-dev] Possible soundness issue with available_externally (split from "RFC: Add guard intrinsics")

Chandler Carruth via llvm-dev llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Fri Feb 26 20:43:30 PST 2016

On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 8:40 PM Xinliang David Li <xinliangli at gmail.com>

> On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 8:30 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com>
> wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 8:15 PM Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote:
>>> Can you explain your concerns about reliability? My idea is that we have
>>> a kind of delayed-name comdat section attribute that says that the name of
>>> the comdat section into which the function will be placed will be based on
>>> the hash of the contents (which should probably be the pre-isel IR-level
>>> contexts plus perhaps the other state that might affect backend
>>> optimization). Maybe just using the MI-level function contents will work
>>> too. It seems like this should be "perfect". I don't see the circumstances
>>> why function definitions optimized under identical optimization settings
>>> should differ in this sense.
>> Ok, let's consider Sanjoy's latest post.
>> I think we could end up with this routine in N different modules with
>> slightly different amounts of information in each. Each of these in turn
>> could cause us to deduce a slightly different set of attributes, and thus
>> compute a different hash.
>> Now, certainly, there are a small number of variants here. Two, maybe
>> three. But this could in the worst case cause us to have two copies of a
>> *huge* number of functions.
>> My concern here is not that this is a *theoretically* hard problem to
>> solve. I think there are good techniques to handle this. My concern is that
>> it will be a substantial amount of work and require a reasonable amount of
>> testing and experimentation.
> Such data won't be too hard to find out. It can be conservatively
> estimated by looking at the final binary code for each COMDAT to see how
> many 'clones's are needed due to different code gen -- the result is the
> upper bound as different code gen does not mean different deduced function
> attributes.
> With PGO, the decision process will also become much simpler.

Sure. And if you want to work on privatization in LLVM's IPO, that would be

But I think it is completely unreasonable to gate checking in code to test
for the invalid transformation until this new optimization technique is
available. We should be fixing the bug now, and then figuring out how to do

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160227/b6f0379d/attachment.html>

More information about the llvm-dev mailing list