[llvm-dev] RFC: Adding a string table to the bitcode format

Teresa Johnson via llvm-dev llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Tue Apr 4 07:37:38 PDT 2017

On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 8:13 PM, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> wrote:

> On Apr 3, 2017, at 7:08 PM, Peter Collingbourne <peter at pcc.me.uk> wrote:
> Hi,
> As part of PR27551 I want to add a string table to the bitcode format to
> allow global value and comdat names to be shared with the proposed symbol
> table (and, as side effects, allow comdat names to be shared with value
> names, make bitcode files more compressible and make bitcode easier to
> parse). The format of the string table would be a top-level block
> containing a blob containing null-terminated strings [0] similar to the
> string table format used in most object files.
> I’m in favor of this, but note that currently string can be encoded with
> less than 8 bits / char in some cases (there might some size increase
> because of this).
> That said we already paid this with the metadata table in the recent past
> for example.
> records would change so that their first operand would specify their names
> with a byte offset into the string table. (To allow for backwards
> compatibility, I would increment the bitcode version.)
> I assume you mean the EPOCH?
> Here is what it would look like as bcanalyzer output:
>   <VERSION op0=2>
>   <COMDAT op0=0 ...> ; name = foo
>   <FUNCTION op0=0 ...> ; name = foo
>   <GLOBALVAR op0=4 ...> ; name = bar
>   <ALIAS op0=8 ...> ; name = baz
>  ; function bodies, etc.
>   <STRTAB_BLOB blob="foo\0bar\0baz\0">
> Why is the string table after the module instead of before?
> Each STRTAB_BLOCK would apply to all preceding MODULE_BLOCKs. This means
> that bitcode files can continue to be concatenated with "llvm-cat -b".
> Do you mean "apply to all preceding MODULE_BLOCKs that aren't followed by
an intervening STRTAB_BLOCK"? I.e. when bitcode files are concatenated you
presumably don't want to apply a STRTAB_BLOCK to a MODULE_BLOCK from a
different input bitcode file that has its own STRTAB_BLOCK.

> (Normally bitcode files would contain a single string table, which in
> multi-module bitcode files would be shared between modules.)
> This *almost* allows us to remove the global (top-level) VST entirely, if
> not for the function offset in the FNENTRY record. However, this offset is
> not actually required because we can scan the module's FUNCTION_BLOCK_IDs
> as we were doing before http://reviews.llvm.org/D12536 (this may have a
> performance impact, so I'll measure it first).
> Assuming that performance looks good, does this seem reasonable to folks?
> I rather seek to have a symbol table that entirely replace the VST, kee.
> If there is a perf impact with the FNENTRY offset, why can’t it be
> replicated in the symbol table?

Won't the new symbol table be added before the top-level VST can be
removed, i.e. you need the linkage types etc right? In that case, can the
offset just be added to the new symbol table? That would be more analogous
to object file symbol tables which also have an offset anyway.


> Thanks for driving this,
>> Mehdi

Teresa Johnson |  Software Engineer |  tejohnson at google.com |  408-460-2413
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20170404/126e0b75/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the llvm-dev mailing list