<div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><br></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 5:21 PM Johannes Doerfert <<a href="mailto:johannesdoerfert@gmail.com">johannesdoerfert@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<p><br>
</p>
<div>On 6/8/20 6:29 PM, Arthur Eubanks via
llvm-dev wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre>Hmm it looks like getting NPM to work with opt is non-trivial. Only a small
portion of the opt functionality works with NPM :(
</pre>
</blockquote>
<p>I am very much looking forward to use the NPM by default but this
sounds like a problem we need to fix first :(.</p></div></blockquote><div>I'll look into this some more. </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div>
<p>You happen to have some "list" of things that are missing?<br></p></div></blockquote><div>Not really, my process is fairly straightforward, set the ENABLE_EXPERIMENTAL_NEW_PASS_MANAGER CMake flag to TRUE, run check-all, and look at new failures. So far these two issues (skipping passes and opt) are the biggest issues I've stumbled across (and mostly by luck, like I said there were a couple failures in GwpAsan that unearthed this, at least for me). I'm still relatively new so I might be missing some existing list of NPM issues that somebody else more experienced has come up with?</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div><p>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre>On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 3:36 PM Robinson, Paul <a href="mailto:paul.robinson@sony.com" target="_blank"><paul.robinson@sony.com></a>
wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre>Maybe you could change the default PM in opt and see what fails?
--paulr
*From:* Arthur Eubanks <a href="mailto:aeubanks@google.com" target="_blank"><aeubanks@google.com></a>
*Sent:* Monday, June 8, 2020 5:52 PM
*To:* Robinson, Paul <a href="mailto:paul.robinson@sony.com" target="_blank"><paul.robinson@sony.com></a>
*Cc:* Chandler Carruth <a href="mailto:chandlerc@gmail.com" target="_blank"><chandlerc@gmail.com></a>; <a href="mailto:llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org" target="_blank">llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org</a>
*Subject:* Re: [llvm-dev] optnone/skipping passes in the new pass manager
On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 7:11 AM Robinson, Paul <a href="mailto:paul.robinson@sony.com" target="_blank"><paul.robinson@sony.com></a>
wrote:
When the optnone design was being discussed, Chandler specifically
rejected having the pass manager involved in the decision (which was the
original proposed design). Assuming he still feels the same way now, if
the existing `skipFunction` calls aren’t being executed under the new pass
manager, then each pass that has that call will need to be modified
accordingly (added to the NPM path or moved to some common point). It
would be best if the `skipFunction` calls were handled consistently in all
passes so that it would become part of the normal pass boilerplate.
Makes sense, thanks for the background. I'll see if there's a clean way to
make this functionality easy to use in the NPM.
I suspect any `skipFunction` or opt-bisection tests have been written to
force the old pass manager, which is why defaulting to the new pass manager
doesn’t fail anywhere.
I took a closer look at some optnone tests and they use opt instead of
clang. opt still defaults to the legacy pass manager regardless of clang's
default.
--paulr
*From:* llvm-dev <a href="mailto:llvm-dev-bounces@lists.llvm.org" target="_blank"><llvm-dev-bounces@lists.llvm.org></a> *On Behalf Of *Arthur
Eubanks via llvm-dev
*Sent:* Sunday, June 7, 2020 7:59 PM
*To:* llvm-dev <a href="mailto:llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org" target="_blank"><llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org></a>
*Subject:* [llvm-dev] optnone/skipping passes in the new pass manager
Looking through some of the remaining test failures under the new pass
manager, I've narrowed down one of the failures in GWPAsan(!) to the fact
that the new pass manager doesn't properly skip passes like the old pass
manager. For example, when a function is marked optnone, or when using
<a href="https://llvm.org/docs/OptBisect.html" target="_blank">https://llvm.org/docs/OptBisect.html</a>
<a href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/llvm.org/docs/OptBisect.html__;!!JmoZiZGBv3RvKRSx!t3zrtZFFWm0ifdWgL9SiWSNETodW3pMSJ8m8YWqK139cicFp_U1juO0D90-VinpUWg$" target="_blank"><https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/llvm.org/docs/OptBisect.html__;!!JmoZiZGBv3RvKRSx!t3zrtZFFWm0ifdWgL9SiWSNETodW3pMSJ8m8YWqK139cicFp_U1juO0D90-VinpUWg$></a>
.
Lots of passes (e.g. SROA) will do the following under the legacy pass
manager:
bool runOnFunction(Function &F) override {
if (skipFunction(F))
return false;
// do pass
}
What's the right way to proceed with this? There are 50-100 calls to
skipFunction() in legacy passes. This doesn't even account for other types
of IR units, like skipModule(Module&).
I suppose it's possible to manually go in and add in the same check in the
new passes, but that seems tedious (and how do you test that at scale?
clearly there aren't many tests for it right now since check-llvm passes
under the new pass manager). An alternative of skipping passes at the pass
manager level would require marking each pass as necessary/optional (I
think...).
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre></pre>
<br>
<fieldset></fieldset>
<pre>_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
<a href="mailto:llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org" target="_blank">llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org</a>
<a href="https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev" target="_blank">https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote></div></div>