[cfe-dev] [llvm-dev] RFC: ODR checker for Clang and LLD

[Mehdi AMINI via cfe-dev]

2017-06-07 16:32 GMT-07:00 Peter Collingbourne via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>:

> On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 8:18 AM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Does this need LLVM support - or is there some generic representation
>> that could be used instead? (I guess LLVM would want to be aware of it when
>> merging modules though, so maybe it's worth having a first-class
>> representation - though LLVM module linking could special case a section
>> the same way the linker could/would - not sure what's the better choice
>> there)
>>
>
> The only thing that LLVM needs to do is to have some way to store a blob
> that will be emitted to the object file. In my prototype I just create a
> GlobalVariable with private linkage, I think in the final version I will
> use an MDString referenced by a named MD node. I don't think we would want
> a higher level representation -- I'd imagine that the blob would be
> entirely a property of the source code, so I can't see anything that an
> IR-level pass would want to do with it. It's similar to some parts of debug
> info in that there's no real benefit to representing it as anything other
> than a blob.
>

If you IR Link two modules, you'd want to check that the hash matches and
diagnose immediately before dropping link once_odr functions, right?

-- 
Mehdi



>
> I was thinking (hand-wavingly vague since I don't know that much about
>> object files, etc) one of those auto-appending sections and an array of
>> constchar*+hash attributed to that section. (then even without an
>> odr-checking aware linker (which would compare and discard these sections)
>> the data could be merged & a post-processing pass on the binary could still
>> point out ODR violations without anything in the toolchain (except clang)
>> needing to support this extra info)
>>
>
> Linkers merge section contents by section name, so you wouldn't need
> anything other than for the object files to agree on a section name. The
> odrtab header in my prototype has a size field, so we could use that to
> split an .odrtab section into multiple odrtabs.
>
> Peter
>
> On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 10:41 PM Peter Collingbourne via cfe-dev <
>> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> I'd like to propose an ODR checker feature for Clang and LLD. The
>>> feature would be similar to gold's --detect-odr-violations feature, but
>>> better: we can rely on integration with clang to avoid relying on debug
>>> info and to perform more precise matching.
>>>
>>> The basic idea is that we use clang's ability to create ODR hashes for
>>> declarations. ODR hashes are computed using all information about a
>>> declaration that is ODR-relevant. If the flag -fdetect-odr-violations is
>>> passed, Clang will store the ODR hashes in a so-called ODR table in each
>>> object file. Each ODR table will contain a mapping from mangled declaration
>>> names to ODR hashes. At link time, the linker will read the ODR table and
>>> report any mismatches.
>>>
>>> To make this work:
>>> - LLVM will be extended with the ability to represent ODR tables in the
>>> IR and emit them to object files
>>> - Clang will be extended with the ability to emit ODR tables using ODR
>>> hashes
>>> - LLD will be extended to read ODR tables from object files
>>>
>>> I have implemented a prototype of this feature. It is available here:
>>> https://github.com/pcc/llvm-project/tree/odr-checker and some results
>>> from applying it to chromium are here: crbug.com/726071
>>> As you can see it did indeed find a number of real ODR violations in
>>> Chromium, including some that wouldn't be detectable using debug info.
>>>
>>> If you're interested in what the format of the ODR table would look
>>> like, that prototype shows pretty much what I had in mind, but I expect
>>> many other aspects of the implementation to change as it is upstreamed.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> --
>>> --
>>> Peter
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> cfe-dev mailing list
>>> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
>>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
>>>
>>
>
>
> --
> --
> Peter
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/attachments/20170610/d06016e7/attachment.html>