<div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 2:40 PM, Yung, Douglas <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:douglas_yung@playstation.sony.com" target="_blank">douglas_yung@playstation.sony.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)">Hi,<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)">The conversation has drifted slightly, so I wanted to bring it back to the version field in the bitcode wrapper.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)">Currently in the toolchain which we ship and support, we use a proprietary linker. That linker is unable to read bitcode files and we do not have any plans
to enable it to as far as I’m aware. Because of this, we need a way of identifying the version of a bitcode file without needing to read/understand the bitcode itself.</span></p></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>You haven't established that you really need this. AFAIK Apple's linker doesn't need this version information and they have shipped LTO for a while now.</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple"><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)"> The bitcode wrapper is perfectly suited for this task as it is simple to parse without the
linker needing to understand bitcode, is already defined and already includes a version field.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)">If we could get the compiler to use that version field that is already present, it would be a simple solution to our problem.</span></p></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>What is this "problem"?</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple"><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)"> So I guess my question is whether
there is any objection to actually using a field which is already allocated for this kind of information?</span></p></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>That is not what is being discussed. We're discussing the forest and not the trees; this patch implies a whole lot of stuff.</div><div><br></div><div>-- Sean Silva<br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple"><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)">Douglas Yung<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<div style="border-style:solid none none;border-top-color:rgb(181,196,223);border-top-width:1pt;padding:3pt 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Tahoma,sans-serif">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Tahoma,sans-serif"> Sean Silva [mailto:<a href="mailto:chisophugis@gmail.com" target="_blank">chisophugis@gmail.com</a>]
<br><span class="">
<b>Sent:</b> Friday, October 31, 2014 21:13<br>
<b>To:</b> <a href="mailto:llvmdev@cs.uiuc.edu" target="_blank">llvmdev@cs.uiuc.edu</a><br>
<b>Cc:</b> Yung, Douglas<br>
</span><b>Subject:</b> Re: Using the unused "version" field in the bitcode wrapper (redux)<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div><div><div class="h5">
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 6:21 PM, Sean Silva <<a href="mailto:chisophugis@gmail.com" target="_blank">chisophugis@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Hi all,<u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Doug Yung started a discussion earlier (<a href="http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2014-September/077227.html" target="_blank">http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2014-September/077227.html</a>) about using the unused "version"
field in the bitcode wrapper, and I think there was some misunderstanding. I'd like to clarify the motivation.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">The reason we want to add the version field is to easily identify "old" bitcode. It is only LLVM version granularity, but that is good enough for us. The obvious thing is that we offer compatibility, so why do we need to know the bitcode
version? There are really two reasons:<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">1. In the short term, LLVM does theoretically provide compatibility. However, we at Sony are under a much stronger commitment to our customers than the open source project here, so until the test infrastructure is beefed up quite a bit
to improve this confidence in the backwards compatibility promise, the version field is a quick unobtrusive way for us to behave correctly in the short term. Beefing up the compatibility testing is a separate discussion that everybody realizes is a much larger
long-term endeavor; we at Sony are glad to help with that. As we prepare for our first official SDK release with LTO, where our customers are officially sanctioned to feed bitcode to our tools, a solution is needed though. I think that existing toolchains
with LTO will also benefit from this in the near-term.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">2. In the long term, it *will* break across major releases. Currently I don't think we have a way to identify this. This is a bit longer-term perspective, but it will eventually come up and this fixes it.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Also, is there a reason why the bitcode wrapper is Darwin-specific?<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Rafael gave me some of the backstory on this. Basically it is to work around some buggy behavior in the Darwin ar. Adding that on the front of the bitcode file just to get a version doesn't seem like a very clean thing to do.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Doug, what other alternatives did you guys consider before settling on this?<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">As for #2 above, the non-universality of the wrapper makes using the wrapper as a version indicator sort of a non-starter.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Looks like I've taken my second U-turn on this proposal :/<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="border-style:none none none solid;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-width:1pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Can we just always use it and simplify the code path?<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(136,136,136)"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(136,136,136)">-- Sean Silva<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
</div></div></div>
</div>
</blockquote></div><br></div></div>