[llvm-dev] Incremental compilation and recognizing distinct bitcode
Eli Friedman via llvm-dev
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Fri Jul 8 15:39:09 PDT 2016
On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 2:18 PM, David Jones via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> For my project, the step of using LLVM to optimize and generate machine
> code for a module is much slower than everything else. I realize a
> significant performance improvement if I can do "incremental compilation"
> and avoid invoking the LLVM code generator if the underlying object has not
> My current strategy is as follows: for each module:
> - write bitcode out to "module.bc.new"
> - if "module.bc" exists, then compare (byte-by-byte) with
> "module.bc.new". If they match, then skip compilation
> - move "module.bc.new" to "module.bc" (known to be different at this point)
> - generate "module.o" (expensive step)
> However, I am finding that occasionally I will write out different bitcode
> for the same input, which causes gratuitous recompilation. If I run
> llvm-dis on "module.bc" and "module.bc.new" in these cases, the output is
> identical, as expected.
> Is it expected that the actual bitcode may change from run to run, perhaps
> as a result of ASLR?
If the input is exactly the same, LLVM should generate the same bitcode
from run to run. That said, we don't have very good testing infrastructure
for this, so it's possible you're tripping over a bug.
Note that llvm-dis by default doesn't print out all the information in a
.bc file; try passing "-preserve-ll-uselistorder=true".
> Is there a better way for me to check that a Module* structure just built
> is (not) identical to that from a previous run?
I don't think so. It's not really a common operation. (Compilers which
support incremental compilation generally use some other mechanism.)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the llvm-dev