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

[Peter Collingbourne via cfe-dev]

On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 6:00 PM, Rui Ueyama <ruiu at google.com> wrote:

> Is the entry in your ODR table 64-bit? Sean mentioned that this is a
> birthday paradox situation, but I don't think we need that large hash
> values, as our aim is not to avoid any collisions. Small number of
> collisions is okay as it just slightly increases false negatives. I think
> it can even be 16-bit if space saving is important. If we choose 16-bit
> hash, the probability that an ODR violation is not detected is 1/65536,
> which is still quite low.
>

I'm not too concerned about the false negative rate by switching to a
shorter hash. Both the name hash and the ODR hash would have to match in
order for there to be a false negative. So even with a 16-bit hash the
probability would in fact be something like 1 in 2^(32 + 16).

The birthday paradox issue around using shorter hashes is that if we see a
name hash collision, we need to decompress the compressed part of the ODR
table in both object files. This is necessary both in order to perform a
string comparison to check that the collision was indeed the result of an
ODR violation and to report the error (because the declaration names and
locations are stored in the compressed part). So if the total number of
declarations is large enough we could end up having to perform a
significant amount of decompression. So there's a tradeoff between space
and time.

That said, it would probably be worth measuring what that tradeoff is in
practice.

Peter


> On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 1:41 PM, Peter Collingbourne via cfe-dev <
> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 12:47 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jun 13, 2017, 11:30 PM Peter Collingbourne <peter at pcc.me.uk>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 11:06 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 10:05 PM Peter Collingbourne <peter at pcc.me.uk>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 8:48 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 8:43 PM Peter Collingbourne <peter at pcc.me.uk>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 7:54 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 6:34 PM Peter Collingbourne via cfe-dev <
>>>>>>>>> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 11:28 PM, Peter Collingbourne <
>>>>>>>>>> peter at pcc.me.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 8:06 PM, Sean Silva <
>>>>>>>>>>> chisophugis at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 4:31 PM, Peter Collingbourne <
>>>>>>>>>>>> peter at pcc.me.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 12:17 AM, Sean Silva <
>>>>>>>>>>>>> chisophugis at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Very nice and simple implementation!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you have any statistics on how large these odr tables are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compared to other object file data? I assume that if these tables contain
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> full mangled symbol names, they could end up being very large and may want
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to share the symbol name strings with the overall string table in the .o
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Looking at Chromium's object files it looks like the total
>>>>>>>>>>>>> size of the odrtabs is about 50% of the total size of the object files,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> which isn't great. The current implementation only looks at records, so I
>>>>>>>>>>>>> imagine that it would be hard to share any of the strings that I'm
>>>>>>>>>>>>> currently creating. (I guess it's possible that some types will have a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> mangled vtable name in the string table, so we may be able to share a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> little that way.) Note however that this was without debug info.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> One option for reducing size would be to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1) store hashes of ODR names in ODR tables, per Rui's
>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggestion (alongside a reference to the name itself in the string table)
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2) compress the string table for the ODR names with a standard
>>>>>>>>>>>>> compression algorithm like gzip.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> This wouldn't seem to affect link time performance much
>>>>>>>>>>>>> because I think we should only need to look at the strings if we see a ODR
>>>>>>>>>>>>> name hash match together with an ODR hash mismatch, which would mean an ODR
>>>>>>>>>>>>> violation with a high probability (i.e. unless there was an ODR name hash
>>>>>>>>>>>>> collision, we have found an ODR violation). If we don't expect a lot of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> sharing with regular string tables (see below), it seems even more
>>>>>>>>>>>>> reasonable.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Neat observation!
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> FWIW, it is a birthday problem type situation though, so for a
>>>>>>>>>>>> 32-bit hash, we would expect a collision in about 1 in 2^16 distinct hashes
>>>>>>>>>>>> (and 2^16 seems pretty easy to hit in a large project). So 64-bit hashes
>>>>>>>>>>>> might be preferable.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Oh right, good point, using a 64-bit hash does seem like a good
>>>>>>>>>>> idea here.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also, do you have any numbers on the performance of your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> initial implementation?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I measured the link time for chromium's unit_tests (the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> largest single binary in chromium) at 5.05s without ODR checks and 6.61s
>>>>>>>>>>>>> with ODR checks. So about 30% overhead, but in absolute terms it doesn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>> seem too bad. So I think this may be acceptable for an initial
>>>>>>>>>>>>> implementation, but it certainly seems worth trying to do better.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I know that things aren't currently apples-to-apples, but how
>>>>>>>>>>>> does that compare to gold?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I will measure it.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> For that unit_tests binary I measured the overhead at about 5
>>>>>>>>>> seconds (average of 10 runs). That is with debug info, of course.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> W.r.t. LLD and having it always on by default (and hence making
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it as fast as possible), it seems like right now you are implementing the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> checking process with a hash table. That's simple and fine for a first
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implementation, but it's probably worth mentioning in a comment the problem
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of checking the tables, at least from the linker's perspective, does fit
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> into a map-reduce pattern and could be easily parallelized if needed. E.g.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a parallel sort to coalesce all entries for symbols of the same name
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> followed by a parallel forEach to check each bucket with the same symbol
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> name (roughly speaking).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Right, that's one approach. I was thinking of a simpler
>>>>>>>>>>>>> approach where at compile time we sort ODR names by hash and partition them
>>>>>>>>>>>>> using (say) the upper bits of the hash, so that at link time we can have N
>>>>>>>>>>>>> threads each building a hash table for a specific partition.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> And of course this work can be started right after symbol
>>>>>>>>>>>>> resolution finishes and parallelised with the rest of the work done by the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> linker.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Even better than doing it faster is just doing less work.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There's a lot of work that the linker is already doing that may be reusable
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for the ODR checking.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> E.g.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - maybe we could get the coalescing step as a byproduct of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> our existing string deduping, which we are generally doing anyway.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - we are already coalescing symbol names for the symbol
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> table. If the ODR table is keyed off of symbols in the binary that we are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inserting into the symbol table, then I think we could do the entire ODR
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> check with no extra "string" work on LLD's part.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I see Rui already mentioned some of this in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=726
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 071#c4.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You mentioned that not everything is necessarily directly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> keyed on a symbol (such as types), but I think that it would really
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simplify things if the check was done as such. Do you have any idea exactly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> how much of the things that we want to check are not keyed on symbols? If
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> most things are keyed on symbols, for the things we are not we can just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> emit extra symbols prefixed by __clang_odr_check_ or whatever.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since the current implementation only works with records there
>>>>>>>>>>>>> is basically zero overlap right now between ODR names and symbols. I
>>>>>>>>>>>>> suppose that I could estimate the amount of function overlap in a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> hypothetical implementation that computes ODR hashes of functions by
>>>>>>>>>>>>> comparing the number of *_odr functions after clang has finished IRgen with
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the number after optimization finishes. This of course would be strictly
>>>>>>>>>>>>> more than functions + types.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Wouldn't any function or symbol using the record type have the
>>>>>>>>>>>> type name somewhere in it? If we used an offset+length encoding (instead of
>>>>>>>>>>>> offset + NUL termination) we might be able to reuse it then (at some cost
>>>>>>>>>>>> in finding the reference).
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> That may be possible with some work in the string table builder.
>>>>>>>>>>> But at that point of course we're not dealing with regular symbols any
>>>>>>>>>>> more. I guess we could have two ODR tables per object file: an array of
>>>>>>>>>>> (ODR hash, location) tuples for ODR names that correspond to symbol table
>>>>>>>>>>> symbols (i.e. Rui's proposal on the chromium bug), and an array of (ODR
>>>>>>>>>>> name, ODR hash, location) tuples for all other ODR names. I guess if we
>>>>>>>>>>> wanted a "low overhead" mode we could just omit the second table or put
>>>>>>>>>>> fewer symbols in it.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> With debug info surely there is some sort of string representing
>>>>>>>>>>>> the record name or something like that, no?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Not the record name on its own (they do appear but a bit
>>>>>>>>>>> awkwardly -- each namespace component is stored in a separate string), but
>>>>>>>>>>> if the record has at least one member function the mangled type name will
>>>>>>>>>>> appear somewhere in .debug_str, so we could in principle reuse that with
>>>>>>>>>>> the offset/length trick.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I guess we may have to have our "low-overhead" user-facing
>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior be a bit more nuanced. E.g.:
>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. does this feature bloat object files significantly
>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. does this feature slow down link times significantly
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Intuitively, it seems like we should be able to get 1. when
>>>>>>>>>>>> debug info happens to be enabled (not sure about split dwarf?) and possibly
>>>>>>>>>>>> in all cases at the cost of complexity. We may be able to get 2. in all
>>>>>>>>>>>> cases with proper design.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I think that would be my rough assessment as well. I think we
>>>>>>>>>>> have a good shot at 1 for all cases with some of the ideas that have been
>>>>>>>>>>> mentioned already. If we can avoid creating dependencies on DWARF I think
>>>>>>>>>>> that would be ideal -- I'd ideally like this to work for COFF as well,
>>>>>>>>>>> where you'd typically expect to find CodeView in object files. If I were to
>>>>>>>>>>> try this I think the first thing that I would try is hash/compression
>>>>>>>>>>> combined with the two ODR tables (no reuse for non-symbol ODR names to
>>>>>>>>>>> start with, as compression may be enough on its own).
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I developed a second prototype which uses hash/compression with
>>>>>>>>>> no attempt to reuse. It is available here:
>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/pcc/llvm-project/tree/odr-checker2
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> For Chromium the object file size overhead was 536566007 bytes,
>>>>>>>>>> or in relative terms about 25%, or about 4% with debug info. I measured
>>>>>>>>>> perf overhead for unit_tests at about 6%, but after I moved the checker
>>>>>>>>>> onto another thread, the overhead disappeared into the noise.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Still seems like quite a big increase.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Any chance of compression?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That was with compression -- the implementation compresses the
>>>>>>>> parts of the ODR table that aren't hashes (aside from the header and the
>>>>>>>> Clang version, which is a small fixed cost), as well as the string table.
>>>>>>>> The hashes were left uncompressed because they are in the critical path of
>>>>>>>> the linker and because I imagine that they wouldn't really be that
>>>>>>>> compressible.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'd be a bit surprised if they weren't especially compressible -
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Maybe I'm wrong, but my intuition about compression is that it works
>>>>>> best when the data contains repeated patterns. If we use a hash function
>>>>>> with good dispersion then I'd expect each hash to have little in common
>>>>>> with other hashes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> and how much of the size increase is the compressed data V the
>>>>>>> uncompressed data?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The ratio was roughly 60% compressed data to 40% uncompressed data.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Is it still in the hot path when parallelized?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not right now according to my benchmarking, but decompression could
>>>>>> push it into the critical path if it ends up taking longer than the rest of
>>>>>> the work done by the linker after symbol resolution. On the same machine
>>>>>> that I used for benchmarking, gunzip'ing 200MB of /dev/urandom (which is
>>>>>> roughly what I'd expect the hashes to look like) takes around 1.1s, i.e. a
>>>>>> not insignificant fraction of lld's runtime.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So I think the remaining gains would either be through limiting the
>>>>>>>> number of ODR table entries, or through reuse of data.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Limiting might be something to explore -- one possibility is that
>>>>>>>> we could limit the ODR table entries to the declarations that are "used" by
>>>>>>>> a particular translation unit (it appears that Clang tracks something like
>>>>>>>> that in Decl::Used/Decl::Referenced, but I'm not sure if that is exactly
>>>>>>>> what we need -- I think we would basically need to test for reference
>>>>>>>> reachability from the functions/globals that are IRgen'd).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Currently it has every type and function that is in the AST? Yeah,
>>>>>>> that's a lot - perhaps it should be more like the things that go in the
>>>>>>> DWARF? (though would need to add some cases there - since the DWARF logic
>>>>>>> already relies on the ODR to not emit duplicates in some cases)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Just every record declaration -- Clang only supports ODR hashes for
>>>>>> record declarations right now. I understand that function declarations
>>>>>> (including function bodies) are still works in progress.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think it should indeed just be roughly the things that go in the
>>>>>> DWARF. I think that at one point I observed that every record declaration,
>>>>>> even unused ones, were going into the DWARF, but I might have been mistaken
>>>>>> because I can no longer reproduce that. I'll take a closer look to see if I
>>>>>> can reuse what logic presumably already exists for DWARF.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In terms of reuse, it seems that of the 536566007 bytes of
>>>>>>>> overhead, 319309579 were the compressed part of the ODR tables. So even if
>>>>>>>> we achieved 100% sharing,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 100% sharing? You mean if all the data were compressed, and assuming
>>>>>>> the hashes were compressible at the same ratio as the other data?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sorry, I mean if 100% of the data in the compressed part of the ODR
>>>>>> table could be eliminated by reusing data stored elsewhere (e.g. in the
>>>>>> object file string table or in the DWARF).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> with the current scheme I think that our minimum achievable overhead
>>>>>>>> would be ~15% (no debug info) or ~2% (with debug info).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Could this go into .dwo files with Fission and be checked by dwp
>>>>>>>>> instead, perhaps?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I think it could also work that way, yes.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm reasonably happy with these figures, at least for a first
>>>>>>>>>> implementation. We may be able to do even better for file size with reuse,
>>>>>>>>>> but I'd leave that for version 2.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What's the story with compatibility between versions, then? Is
>>>>>>>>> there a version header?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes, the header contains a version number.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Will old formats be supported by lld indefinitely? Not at all?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I think we should drop support for old formats when we introduce a
>>>>>>>> new format. My understanding is that the ODR hash can change whenever Clang
>>>>>>>> changes (the implementation only performs ODR checking if all ODR tables
>>>>>>>> were produced by the same revision of Clang), so there wouldn't seem to be
>>>>>>>> a huge benefit in keeping support for old formats around.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I imagine it's possible people aren't necessarily going to rev lld
>>>>>>> in exact lock-step with clang, but I could be wrong. (certainly binutils ld
>>>>>>> or gold aren't released/kept in lock-step with GCC, for example)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's certainly possible, but I'd say that the bar for dropping
>>>>>> backwards compatibility is lower because ODR tables are not required for
>>>>>> correctness. We could keep compatibility with the last version or so if it
>>>>>> isn't too burdensome, or otherwise print a warning.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> They aren't required for correctness, but upgrading your compiler or
>>>>> linker then silently losing ODR checking would be bad (or even not silently
>>>>> losing it, but having no choice but to rev both to keep the functionality &
>>>>> hold the ODR-cleanliness bar) - it's the sort of thing where if you lost
>>>>> the checking, then gained it back again later, the regression cleanup would
>>>>> be annoying/an impediment to using the feature.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Makes sense I guess. I'd be fine with a policy where the Nth open
>>>> source release should be able to read ODR tables produced by the N-1th and
>>>> possibly the N-2th release.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Still strikes me as a bit awkward - wonder how that compared to other
>>> (similar or different) linker features.
>>>
>>
>> I think the most similar existing feature is .gdb_index. They have
>> already gone through a few format revisions:
>> https://sourceware.org/gdb/onlinedocs/gdb/Index-Section-Format.html
>> and have deprecated/removed support for older formats.
>>
>> Because the requirements for ODR tables are simpler than those for
>> .gdb_index, I'd expect us to converge on a final format sooner, so in
>> practice the window of compatibility would end up being longer than a year.
>>
>> Peter
>>
>>
>>>
>>>> Any idea what Daniel Jasper & co have been working on WRT ODR checking
>>>>> & how this feature integrates or doesn't with their work? I imagine they
>>>>> might be working on something more like a Clang Tooling style approach, but
>>>>> I'm not sure.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'm not aware of any work like that, only of Richard Trieu's efforts
>>>> for modules that I'm piggybacking on.
>>>>
>>>
>>> +Djasper - perhaps you could provide some context on other odr detection
>>> efforts?
>>>
>>>
>>>> Peter
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> - Dave
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Peter
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Peter
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> - Dave
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Peter
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Peter
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> -- Sean Silva
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The issue of retaining the ODR check for functions even if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they get inlined may inherently pose an extra cost that can't be folded
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> into existing work the linker is doing, so there might be a reason for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clang to have a default mode that has practically no linking overhead and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one that does more thorough checking but imposes extra linking overhead.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Think something like a crazy boost library with thousands of functions that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> get inlined away, but have gigantic mangled names and so precisely are the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ones that are going to impose extra cost on the linker. Simply due to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> extra volume of strings that the linker would need to look at, I don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think there's a way to include checking of all inlined function "for free"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at the linker level using the symbol approach.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I guess those inlined functions would still have those symbol
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> names in debug info (I think?), so piggybacking on the string deduplication
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we're already doing might make it possible to fold away the work in that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> case (but then again, would still impose extra cost with split dwarf...).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anyway, let's wait to see what the actual performance numbers
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- Sean Silva
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 10:40 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/l
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lvm-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
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>> Peter
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>> Peter
>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>> cfe-dev mailing list
>>>>>>>>>> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
>>>>>>>>>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Peter
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Peter
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> --
>>>> Peter
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> --
>> Peter
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> cfe-dev mailing list
>> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
>>
>>
>


-- 
-- 
Peter
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/attachments/20170614/23f5c0c2/attachment.html>