[llvm-dev] [BUG Report] -dead_strip, strips prefix data unconditionally on macOS

Tue Mar 7 11:23:36 PST 2017

My point was more that it'd be great if symbols and sections and dead-code
stripping, in general, would work more like they do elsewhere. ISTM that'd
make things cleaner generally. No special case for offset aliases would be
needed, nor for features like prefix data. They'd just work by virtue of
generic handling for llvm sections turning into the appropriate symbol
flags. (It's a shame that defining the start of a subsection wasn't made
opt-IN for a symbol in macho, but oh well.)

Now, one of the *consequences* of hooking up the infrastructure that was is
that -fno-{function,data}-sections would automatically work. But I was
thinking of that independently of whether a user might want to actually
specify that.

However -- there is actually another possible reason to disable it: when
it's disabled, you avoid inserting relocations for references to local data
and functions. That can sometimes allow the use of shorter instructions to
reference nearby data -- so, in fact, it's possible for
-f{function,data}-sections to make your FINAL binary larger than it would
be without.

On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 1:12 AM, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> wrote:

>
> On Mar 6, 2017, at 7:56 PM, James Y Knight via llvm-dev <
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
> Oh, that's great that it's possible to implement properly, now. Does it
> actually work for
>
> It'd be cool if LLVM hooked up its generic section handling support to
> this feature now, so that the only global symbols that *didn't* get marked
> as .alt_entry were those at the beginning of what llvm would consider
> sections.
>
> Then apple platforms could behave sanely, like all other platforms do,
> only with -f{function,data}-sections defaulted to on instead of off.
>
>
> What is the advantage of not using -f{function,data}-sections? (i.e. what
> isn’t sane about it?)
>
> I’m asking because I was told the only reason not to use it all the time
> on ELF is that it makes intermediate object files larger.
>
> Thanks,
>
> —
> Mehdi
>
>
>
>
>
> (That is, if you specify -fno-function-sections -fno-data-sections, it
> could mark nearly *everything* as .alt_entry -- except the first symbol in
> the object file)
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 2:35 PM, Peter Collingbourne <peter at pcc.me.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> That is in theory what omitting the .subsections_via_symbols directive is
>> supposed to do, but in an experiment I ran a year or two ago I found that
>> the Mach-O linker was still dead stripping on symbol boundaries with this
>> directive omitted.
>>
>> In any case, a more precise approach has more recently (~a few months
>> ago) become possible. There is a relatively new asm directive called
>> .altentry that, as I understand it, tells the linker to disregard a given
>> symbol as a section boundary (LLVM already uses this for aliases pointing
>> into the middle of a global). So what you would do is to use .altentry on
>> the function symbol, with an internal symbol appearing before the prefix
>> data to ensure that it is not considered part of the body of the previous
>> function.
>>
>> Peter
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 11:19 AM, James Y Knight via llvm-dev <
>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>
>>> AFAIK, this cannot actually work on Apple platforms, because its object
>>> file format (Mach-O) doesn't use sections to determine the ranges of
>>> code/data to keep together, but instead _infers_ boundaries based on the
>>> range between global symbols in the symbol table.
>>>
>>> So, the symbol pointing to the beginning of @main *necessarily* makes
>>> that be a section boundary.
>>>
>>> I think the best that could be done in LLVM is to not emit the
>>> ".subsections_via_symbols" asm directive (effectively disabling dead
>>> stripping on that object) if any prefix data exists. Currently it emits
>>> that flag unconditionally for MachO.
>>>
>>> On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 4:40 AM, Moritz Angermann via llvm-dev <
>>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> I just came across a rather annoying behavior with llvm 3.9. Assuming
>>>> the following
>>>> samle code in test.ll:
>>>>
>>>> ; Lets have some global int x = 4
>>>> @x = global i32 10, align 4
>>>> ; and two strings "p = %d\n" for the prefix data,
>>>> ; as well as "x = %d\n" to print the (global) x value.
>>>> @.str = private unnamed_addr constant [8 x i8] c"x = %d\0A\00", align 1
>>>> @.str2 = private unnamed_addr constant [8 x i8] c"p = %d\0A\00", align 1
>>>>
>>>> ; declare printf, we'll use this later for printf style debugging.
>>>> declare i32 @printf(i8*, ...)
>>>>
>>>> ; define a main function.
>>>> define i32 @main() prefix i32 123 {
>>>>   ; obtain a i32 pointer to the main function.
>>>>   ; the prefix data is right before that pointer.
>>>>   %main = bitcast i32 ()* @main to i32*
>>>>
>>>>   ; use the gep, to cmpute the start of the prefix data.
>>>>   %prefix_ptr = getelementptr inbounds i32, i32* %main, i32 -1
>>>>   ; and load it.
>>>>   %prefix_val = load i32, i32* %prefix_ptr
>>>>
>>>>   ; print that value.
>>>>   %ret = call i32 (i8*, ...) @printf(i8* getelementptr inbounds ([8 x
>>>> i8], [8 x i8]* @.str2, i32 0, i32 0), i32 %prefix_val)
>>>>
>>>>   ; similarly let's do the same with the global x.
>>>>   %1 = alloca i32, align 4
>>>>   store i32 0, i32* %1, align 4
>>>>   %2 = load i32, i32* @x, align 4
>>>>   %3 = call i32 (i8*, ...) @printf(i8* getelementptr inbounds ([8 x
>>>> i8], [8 x i8]* @.str, i32 0, i32 0), i32 %2)
>>>>   ret i32 0
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> gives the following result (expected)
>>>>
>>>>    $ clang test.ll
>>>>    $ ./a.out
>>>>    p = 123
>>>>    x = 10
>>>>
>>>> however, with -dead_strip on macOS, we see the following:
>>>>
>>>>    $ clang test.ll -dead_strip
>>>>    $ ./a.out
>>>>    p = 0
>>>>    x = 10
>>>>
>>>> Thus I believe we are incorrectly stripping prefix data when linking
>>>> with -dead_strip on macOS.
>>>>
>>>> As I do not have a bugzilla account, and hence cannot post this as a
>>>> proper bug report.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>>  Moritz
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>>>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
>>>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
>>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> --
>> Peter
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20170307/321362b7/attachment-0001.html>