[LLVMdev] [ARM] [PIC] optimizing the loading of hidden global variable

[Weiming Zhao]

Hi Rafael,

Yes, merging gv prevents linker to do garbage collection. Should it be implemented as a peephole pass? If we do it too early, the distance between GVs are not fixed yet.

PS:
Below is the GCC output with "extern" hidden:
	ldr	r2, .L2
	stmfd	sp!, {r3, lr}
	.save {r3, lr}
.LPIC0:
	add	r0, pc, r2
	bl	_Z4initPv(PLT)
	ldr	r1, .L2+4
.LPIC1:
	add	r0, pc, r1
	bl	_Z4initPv(PLT)
	ldr	r0, .L2+8
.LPIC2:
	add	r0, pc, r0
	ldmfd	sp!, {r3, lr}
	b	_Z4initPv(PLT)
.L3:
	.align	2
.L2:
	.word	g0-(.LPIC0+8)
	.word	g1-(.LPIC1+8)
	.word	g2-(.LPIC2+8)

Thanks,
Weiming

Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation


-----Original Message-----
From: Rafael Espíndola [mailto:rafael.espindola at gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, March 14, 2014 9:04 AM
To: Tim Northover
Cc: Weiming Zhao; LLVM Developers Mailing List; Jim Grosbach; Nick Kledzik
Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] [ARM] [PIC] optimizing the loading of hidden global variable

> After a very brief thought, I'd still go for GlobalMerge now, in 
> conjunction with an enhanced "alias" so that you could emit something
> like:
>
>     @g1 = hidden alias [100 x i32]* bitcast(i32* getelementptr([300 x
> i32]* @Merged, i32 0, i32 0) to [100 x i32]*)
>
> We certainly don't seem to handle this alias properly now though, and 
> it may violate the intended uses. Rafael's doing some thinking about 
> "alias" at the moment, so I've CCed him.
>
> Would that be a horrific abuse of the poor alias system?

I think it would :-) Folding objects like this prevents the linker from deleting one of them if it is unused for example.

I think it is just a missing optimization in the ARM backend. If it knows multiple objecs are in the same DSO, it can use the address of one to find the other.

Given:

@g0 = hidden global [100 x i32] zeroinitializer, align 4
@g1 = hidden global [100 x i32] zeroinitializer, align 4 define void @foo() {
  tail call void @bar(i8* bitcast ([100 x i32]* @g0 to i8*))
  tail call void @bar(i8* bitcast ([100 x i32]* @g1 to i8*))
  ret void
}
declare void @bar(i8*)

The command "llc -mtriple=i686-pc-linux -relocation-model=pic" produces

calll .L0$pb
.L0$pb:
popl %ebx
.Ltmp3:
addl $_GLOBAL_OFFSET_TABLE_+(.Ltmp3-.L0$pb), %ebx leal g0 at GOTOFF(%ebx), %eax movl %eax, (%esp) calll bar at PLT leal g1 at GOTOFF(%ebx), %eax movl %eax, (%esp) calll bar at PLT

Which is ok , since the add of ebx is folded and the constant is an immediate in x86.

On ARM, that is not the case. We produce

        ldr     r0, .LCPI0_0
        add     r4, pc, r0 // r4 is the equivalent of ebx in the x86 case.
        ldr       r0, .LCPI0_1 // r0 is the constant that is an
immediate in x86.
        add     r0, r0, r4 // that is the add that is folded in x86
...
.LCPI0_0:
        .long   _GLOBAL_OFFSET_TABLE_-(.LPC0_0+8)
.LCPI0_1:
        .long   g0(GOTOFF)

For ARM, codegen already keeps tracks of offset so it can implement the constant islands, so it should be able to see that the two globals are close enough that offset between them fits an immediate.

Nick, will this work on MachO or can ld64 move _g0, _g1 and _g2 too far apart?

BTW, what will gcc produce for

void init(void *);
extern int g0[100] __attribute__((visibility("hidden")));
extern int g1[100] __attribute__((visibility("hidden")));
extern int g2[100] __attribute__((visibility("hidden")));
void foo() {
  init(&g0);
  init(&g1);
  init(&g2);
}

Cheers,
Rafael