[cfe-dev] Module build - tokenized form of intermediate source stream

Mon Oct 19 21:01:25 PDT 2015

On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 10:34 AM, Serge Pavlov <sepavloff at gmail.com> wrote:

> 2015-10-15 5:27 GMT+06:00 Richard Smith <richard at metafoo.co.uk>:
>
>> On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 5:55 AM, Serge Pavlov <sepavloff at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> 2015-10-13 8:52 GMT+06:00 Sean Silva <chisophugis at gmail.com>:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 12:13 PM, Richard Smith via cfe-dev <
>>>> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 11:33 AM, Serge Pavlov via cfe-dev <
>>>>> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now building a module involves creation of intermediate source
>>>>>> streams that includes/imports each header composing the  module. This
>>>>>> source stream is then parsed as if it were a source file. So to build a
>>>>>> module several transformations must be done:
>>>>>> - Module map is parsed to produce module objects(clang::Module),
>>>>>> - Module objects are used to build source stream
>>>>>> (llvm::MemoryBuffer), which contains include directives,
>>>>>> - The source stream is parsed to produce module content.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The build process could be simpler, if instead of text source stream
>>>>>> we prepared a sequence of annotation tokens, annot_module_begin,
>>>>>> annot_module_end and some new token, say annot_module_header, which
>>>>>> represented a header of a module. It would be something like pretokenized
>>>>>> header but without a counterpart in file system.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Such redesign would help in solving performance degradation reported
>>>>>> in PR24667 ([Regression] Quadratic module build time due to
>>>>>> Preprocessor::LeaveSubmodule). The reason of the problem is leaving module
>>>>>> after each header, even if the next header is of the same module.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> We generally recommend that each header goes in its own submodule, so
>>>>> optimizing for this case doesn't address the problem for a lot of cases.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>> These are different use cases and there is nothing bad if the problem
>>> will be solved with different means. If a user follow this recommendation
>>> and puts each header into a separate module, he won't suffer from the
>>> tokenized form of the intermediate input stream. If the user chooses to put
>>> many headers into one module, this change can solve the problem. The cited
>>> PR refers to just the latter case.
>>>
>>
>> I think you're missing my point. We seem to have a choice between a
>> general solution that addresses the problem in all cases, and a solution
>> that only helps for the "one big module with no submodules" case (which is
>> not the case that you get for, say, an umbrella directory module / umbrella
>> header / libc++ / Darwin's libc / ...). If these solutions don't have
>> drastically different technical complexity, the former seems like the
>> better choice.
>>
>> I'm not opposed to providing a token sequence rather than text for the
>> synthesized module umbrella header, but we'd need a reasonably strong
>> argument to justify the added complexity, especially as we still need our
>> current mode to handle umbrella headers on the file system, #includes
>> within modular headers, and so on. If we want something like that, a
>> simpler approach might be to add a pragma for starting / ending a module,
>> and emit that into the header file we synthesize, and then teach
>> PPLexerChange not to do the extra work when switching modules if the source
>> and destination module are actually the same.
>>
>>
>>> The "one huge submodule" approach with no local visibility is actually
>>>> very useful to have because it (for better or for worse) is very close to
>>>> the semantics of PCH (which are very simple). This makes it a nice
>>>> incremental step away from PCH and very easy to understand.
>>>>
>>>> Also, I think "we generally recommend" is a bit strong considering that
>>>> this isn't documented anywhere to my knowledge. In fact, the documentation
>>>> I've written internally for my customers recommends the exact opposite for
>>>> the reason described above.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> This very convenient for users. Usually it is much simpler to write
>>> something like #include "clang.h" instead of listing dozen of includes.
>>> When API is distributed by many headers, a user must determine first where
>>> the necessary piece is declared. In pre-module era splitting API was
>>> unavoidable evil, as it reduced compile time. With modules we can enable
>>> more convenient solutions.
>>>
>>
>> I agree, but that seems to me that this should be the choice of the user
>> of the API. If they want to import all of the Clang API, that should work
>> (and if you add an umbrella "clang.h" header, it will work), but if they
>> just #include some small part of that interface, should they really get the
>> whole thing?
>>
>> -- Sean Silva
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Leaving module after the last header would be a solution but it is
>>>>>> problematic to reveal if the header just parsed is the last one, - there is
>>>>>> no such thing as look ahead of the next include directive. Using tokenized
>>>>>> input would mark module ends easily.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I have a different approach in mind for that case: namely, to produce
>>>>> a separate submodule state for distinct submodules even when not in local
>>>>> visibility mode, and lazily populate its Macros map when identifiers are
>>>>> queried. That way, the performance is linear in the number of macros the
>>>>> submodule actually defines or uses, not in the total number defined or used
>>>>> by the top-level module.
>>>>>
>>>>
> That is we need to maintain an object of type SubmoduleState for each
> module in all modes. The SubmoduleState is extended by new field that
> represents a map from IdentifierInfo* to ModuleMacro, which is populated
> when preprocessor tries to find if the identifier used in the source is a
> macro. LeaveSubmodule does not build ModuleMacro's anymore. Instead just
> before the module is serialized, SubmoduleState::Macro is scanned and for
> identifiers that do not have associated ModuleMacro, the latter is created.
>
> Probably we need to introduce new flag in IdentifierInfo, something like
> 'NotAMacro', to mark identifiers, that were checked if they are macro names
> and found they are not. It would allow to avoid extra look-ups. If flag
> HasMacro is set, this flag is cleared.
>
> It looks like we have to use complex procedure because we need to support
> the case when one header defines a macro and another only uses it. In this
> case macro state must be kept somewhere if LeaveSubmodule is called between
> headers.
>
> What about such implementation?
>

That seems pretty invasive. I'm not sure it is worth it; the case that I
reduced to PR24667 was fairly extreme (all headers for a large project
(~size of LLVM) in a single top-level module). I'm not sure how likely it
is that this will be ran into in practice. It's definitely worth fixing on
the principle of avoiding quadratic behavior, but it isn't (currently)
blocking a real-world use case, so I hesitate to do very invasive changes.

-- Sean Silva

>
>
>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Is there any reason why textual form of the intermediate source
>>>>>> stream should be kept? Does implementing tokenized form of it make sense?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> --Serge
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> cfe-dev mailing list
>>>>>> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
>>>>>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> cfe-dev mailing list
>>>>> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
>>>>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/attachments/20151019/a8a02030/attachment.html>