[cfe-dev] Why clang needs to fork into itself?
alp at nuanti.com
Wed Jan 29 11:37:01 PST 2014
On 29/01/2014 18:15, Ted Kremenek wrote:
> On Jan 29, 2014, at 9:55 AM, Richard Smith <metafoo at gmail.com
> <mailto:metafoo at gmail.com>> wrote:
>> On Wed Jan 29 2014 at 12:35:23 AM, Ted Kremenek <kremenek at apple.com
>> <mailto:kremenek at apple.com>> wrote:
>> On Jan 28, 2014, at 11:58 PM, Richard Smith
>> <richard at metafoo.co.uk <mailto:richard at metafoo.co.uk>> wrote:
>>> That said, most users of the compiler don't actually *want* a
>>> driver. They want just a .c* -> .o compiler, not a
>>> multi-source-file cross-language compiler + assembler + linker +
>>> kitchen sink, and it makes sense to me to optimize for the
>>> single-source, -c case.
>> I don’t really know if it matters what most users “want.” We
>> still need to support the kitchen sink model; it’s never going to
>> go away.
>> I think it does matter, because it helps us set our priorities. In
>> particular, if we can make single-source -c builds measurably faster,
>> that has benefits for a lot of users, even if we leave all other
>> modes alone.
>> By “optimize”, what specifically do you propose/suggest?
>> Nothing concrete, merely that we shouldn't dismiss this out of hand.
>> For instance, if we can tell people to run -c --disable-fork for a
>> measurable speedup (with a corresponding degradation in crash
>> recovery), that might be valuable to some.
> I agree that making single source builds faster is a case worth
Hi Richard, Ted,
I have a very simple solution to get started with:
+ bool TryInProcess = getArgs().hasArg(options::OPT_fno_crash_diagnostics);
+ if (TryInProcess && C.getExecutable() ==
+ const ArgStringList &Arguments = C.getArguments();
+ Res = main(Argv.size() - 1, Argv.data());
+ } else
This passes all but one of the tests (which appears to be a genuine bug
in the preprocessor that I'm looking to fix now).
All -cc1, -cc1as, -E and a couple of other invocations get run
in-process with no apparent regressions.
This setup parallels the way we skip expensive checks in Parse and Sema
when we know a diagnostic is ignored and it shouldn't have any
observable effect to the user other than fewer PIDs and invocations.
I'd like to move forward with this so we can start to experiment with
in-process operation focusing on the single input case Richard mentioned.
It's not particularly hi-tech, but that's what makes it kind of neat.
What do you think?
>> Even the .c -> .o compiler benefits from process isolation for
>> the purpose of crash reporting. Perhaps there are alternate
>> solutions for reporting crashes, but they are a bit speculative
>> at this point.
>> I also haven’t seen any numbers mentioned on this thread that
>> justify “optimizing” anything, at least from a performance
>> perspective. I’m not saying there isn’t a possible performance
>> win here by eliminating the posix_spawn call, but that hasn’t
>> been justified yet (or if it has, I apologize that I haven’t seen
>> it). Or perhaps this discussion isn’t about optimizing
>> performance, but refining the driver design. In that case, it’s
>> not clear to me what specific problems are being tackled here
>> other than possibly making the compiler a little easier to debug
>> or profile.
>> I think the changes proposed on this thread will make the driver
>> design more complex. I'd also like to see some numbers.
> cfe-dev mailing list
> cfe-dev at cs.uiuc.edu
the browser experts
More information about the cfe-dev