[cfe-dev] [llvm-dev] RFC: Emitting empty invariant group for vtable loads

[Hal Finkel via cfe-dev]

Hi Piotr,

I think makes sense. Modulo bitcasts, the invariant is identified by a 
particular pointer SSA value. Given that you can't sensibly have two 
nonequivalent invariants associated with the same pointer SSA value 
simultaneously, there's no need to also identify the invariant with a 
metadata string as well. When we need a new "identifier" for the 
pointed-to value, we get one using invariant.group.barrier.

  -Hal


On 01/24/2017 01:39 PM, Piotr Padlewski via llvm-dev wrote:
> Hi,
> I would really like to hear some feedback about this.
>
> Piotr
>
> 2017-01-20 17:07 GMT+01:00 Piotr Padlewski <piotr.padlewski at gmail.com 
> <mailto:piotr.padlewski at gmail.com>>:
>
>     Hi all,
>
>     I would like to propose a new way clang would decorate vtable
>     loads in order to handle devirtualization better.
>
>     I've added *llvm-dev* also, because this can start a discussion
>     about changing invariant.group to just invariant.
>
>     PDF version of this RFC can be found here:
>
>     https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B72TmzNsY6Z8ZmpOUnB5dDZfSFU/view?usp=sharing
>     <https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B72TmzNsY6Z8ZmpOUnB5dDZfSFU/view?usp=sharing>
>
>
>         Background:
>
>     Initial old design:
>
>     http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/2015-July/044227.html
>     <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/2015-July/044227.html>
>
>     My talk from LLVM Dev Meeting
>
>     http://llvm.org/devmtg/2016-11/#talk6
>     <http://llvm.org/devmtg/2016-11/#talk6>
>
>
>         The problem
>
>     Clang with -fstrict-vtable-pointers decorates vtable loads with
>     metadata corresponding to mangled pointer type name like:
>
>     voidg(A& a){   a.foo();}
>
>     define void at _Z1gR1A(%struct.A* dereferenceable(8) %a)
>     local_unnamed_addr #0{entry: %0= bitcast %struct.A* %a to
>     void(%struct.A*)*** %vtable = load void(%struct.A*)**,
>     void(%struct.A*)*** %0, !invariant.group !7 %1= load
>     void(%struct.A*)*, void(%struct.A*)** %vtable tail call
>     void%1(%struct.A* nonnull %a) ret void}!7= !{!"_ZTS1A"}
>
>     This works well if the pointer type doesn’t change, but when it
>     does, devirtualization might not happen like here:
>
>     structA {   A();virtualvoidfoo();};structB :
>     A{   B();virtualvoidfoo();};voidg(A&
>     a){   a.foo();   a.foo();}voidclobber(A&);voidf() {     B
>     b;     clobber(b);     g(b);}
>
>     The other problem is that when we combine 2 instructions with
>     different invariant.group metadata, then we pick one of them,
>     because for now we can have only single !invariant.group metadata.
>
>
>       The solution
>
>     I had some initial ideas how it can be solved, like
>
>     1.
>
>         introducing multi invariant groups
>
>     2.
>
>         having sub invariant groups - like inheritance, so we could
>         figure out that one group is subgroup of another
>
>     3.
>
>         decorating all loads with base pointer MD (doesn’t work with
>         multiple inheritance)
>
>     I consulted my ideas with Krzysztof Pszeniczny, and he proposed
>     something much simpler: we can decorate every invariant.group md
>     with empty metadata.
>
>     This should work because the lifetime of the object is strictly
>     defined by invariant.group.barrier.
>
>     If this holds, we can start discussion about if it makes sense to
>     keep invariant groups, and instead have just “invariant”, that
>     would be equivalent to having invariant.group with the same metadata.
>
>     Do you have some thoughts about this approach? I don’t have a
>     mathematical proof, but I am confident that it should be valid.
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
-- 
Hal Finkel
Lead, Compiler Technology and Programming Languages
Leadership Computing Facility
Argonne National Laboratory
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/attachments/20170125/7a93830a/attachment.html>