[llvm-dev] Relationship between clang, opt and llc

Sean Silva via llvm-dev llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Sat Jan 6 16:37:21 PST 2018 

On Jan 5, 2018 11:30 PM, "toddy wang via llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
wrote:

What I am trying is to compile a program with different sets of
optimization flags.
If there is no fine-grained control over clang optimization flags, it would
be impossible to achieve what I intend.


LLD has -lto-newpm-passes (and the corresponding -lto-newpm-aa-pipeline)
which allows you to pass a custom pass pipeline with full control. At one
point I was using a similar modification to clang (see
https://reviews.llvm.org/D21954) that never landed.

-- Sean Silva


Although there is fine-grained control via opt, for a large-scale projects,
clang-opt-llc pipeline may not be a drop-in solution.

On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 10:00 PM, Craig Topper <craig.topper at gmail.com>
wrote:

> I don't think "clang -help" prints options about optimizations. Clang
> itself doesn't have direct support for fine grained optimization control.
> Just the flag for levels -O0/-O1/-O2/-O3. This is intended to be simple and
> sufficient interface for most users who just want to compile their code. So
> I don't think there's a way to pass just -dse to clang.
>
> opt on the other hand is more of a utility for developers of llvm that
> provides fine grained control of optimizations for testing purposes.
>
>
>
> ~Craig
>
> On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 5:41 PM, toddy wang <wenwangtoddy at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Craig, thanks a lot!
>>
>> I'm actually confused by clang optimization flags.
>>
>> If I run clang -help, it will show many optimizations (denoted as set A)
>>  and non-optimization options (denoted as set B).
>> If I run llvm-as < /dev/null | opt -O0/1/2/3 -disable-output
>> -debug-pass=Arguments, it also shows many optimization flags (denote as set
>> C).
>>
>> There are many options in set C while not in set A, and also options in
>> set A but not in set C.
>>
>> The general question is:  what is the relationship between set A and set
>> C, at the same optimization level O0/O1/O2/O3?
>> Another question is: how to specify an option in set C as a clang command
>> line option, if it is not in A?
>>
>> For example, -dse is in set C but not in set A, how can I specify it as a
>> clang option? Or simply I cannot do that.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 7:55 PM, Craig Topper <craig.topper at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> O0 didn't start applying optnone until r304127 in May 2017 which is
>>> after the 4.0 family was branched. So only 5.0, 6.0, and trunk have that
>>> behavior. Commit message copied below
>>>
>>> Author: Mehdi Amini <joker.eph at gmail.com>
>>>
>>> Date:   Mon May 29 05:38:20 2017 +0000
>>>
>>>
>>>     IRGen: Add optnone attribute on function during O0
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>     Amongst other, this will help LTO to correctly handle/honor files
>>>
>>>     compiled with O0, helping debugging failures.
>>>
>>>     It also seems in line with how we handle other options, like how
>>>
>>>     -fnoinline adds the appropriate attribute as well.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>     Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28404
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ~Craig
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 4:49 PM, toddy wang <wenwangtoddy at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> @Zhaopei, thanks for the clarification.
>>>>
>>>> @Craig and @Michael, for clang 4.0.1,  -Xclang -disable-O0-optnone
>>>> gives the following error message. From which version -disable-O0-optnone
>>>> gets supported?
>>>>
>>>> [twang15 at c89 temp]$ clang++ -O0 -Xclang -disable-O0-optnone -Xclang
>>>> -disable-llvm-passes -c -emit-llvm -o a.bc LULESH.cc
>>>> error: unknown argument: '-disable-O0-optnone'
>>>>
>>>> [twang15 at c89 temp]$ clang++ --version
>>>> clang version 4.0.1 (tags/RELEASE_401/final)
>>>> Target: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 4:45 PM, Craig Topper <craig.topper at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> If you pass -O0 to clang, most functions will be tagged with an
>>>>> optnone function attribute that will prevent opt and llc even if you pass
>>>>> -O3 to opt and llc. This is the mostly likely cause for the slow down in 2.
>>>>>
>>>>> You can disable the optnone function attribute behavior by passing
>>>>> "-Xclang -disable-O0-optnone" to clang
>>>>>
>>>>> ~Craig
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 1:19 PM, toddy wang via llvm-dev <
>>>>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I tried the following on LULESH1.0 serial version (
>>>>>> https://codesign.llnl.gov/lulesh/LULESH.cc)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1. clang++ -O3 LULESH.cc; ./a.out 20
>>>>>> Runtime: 9.487353 second
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2. clang++ -O0 -Xclang -disable-llvm-passes -c -emit-llvm -o a.bc
>>>>>> LULESH.cc; opt -O3 a.bc -o b.bc; llc -O3 -filetype=obj b.bc -o b.o ;
>>>>>> clang++ b.o -o b.out; ./b.out 20
>>>>>> Runtime: 24.15 seconds
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 3. clang++ -O3 -Xclang -disable-llvm-passes -c -emit-llvm -o a.bc
>>>>>> LULESH.cc; opt -O3 a.bc -o b.bc; llc -O3 -filetype=obj b.bc -o b.o ;
>>>>>> clang++ b.o -o b.out; ./b.out 20
>>>>>> Runtime: 9.53 seconds
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1 and 3 have almost the same performance, while 2 is significantly
>>>>>> worse, while I expect 1, 2 ,3 should have trivial difference.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is this a wrong expectation?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> @Peizhao, what did you try in your last post?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 12:15 PM, Peizhao Ou via llvm-dev <
>>>>>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's really nice of you pointing out the -Xclang option, it makes
>>>>>>> things much easier. I really appreciate your help!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>> Peizhao
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 10:12 PM, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com
>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Apr 10, 2017, at 5:21 PM, Craig Topper via llvm-dev <
>>>>>>>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> clang -O0 does not disable all optimization passes modify the IR.;
>>>>>>>> In fact it causes most functions to get tagged with noinline to prevent
>>>>>>>> inlinining
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It also disable lifetime instrinsics emission and TBAA, etc.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What you really need to do is
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> clang -O3 -c emit-llvm -o source.bc -v
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Find the -cc1 command line from that output. Execute that command
>>>>>>>> with --disable-llvm-passes. leave the -O3 and everything else.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That’s a bit complicated: CC1 options can be passed through with
>>>>>>>> -Xclang, for example here just adding to the regular clang invocation `
>>>>>>>> -Xclang -disable-llvm-passes`
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> —
>>>>>>>> Mehdi
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You should be able to feed the output from that command to opt/llc
>>>>>>>> and get consistent results.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ~Craig
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 4:57 PM, Peizhao Ou via llvm-dev <
>>>>>>>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hi folks,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I am wondering about the relationship clang, opt and llc. I
>>>>>>>>> understand that this has been asked, e.g.,
>>>>>>>>> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/40350990/relationsh
>>>>>>>>> ip-between-clang-opt-llc-and-llvm-linker. Sorry for posting a
>>>>>>>>> similar question again, but I still have something that hasn't been
>>>>>>>>> resolved yet.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> More specifically I am wondering about the following two
>>>>>>>>> approaches compiling optimized executable:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 1. clang -O3 -c source.c -o source.o
>>>>>>>>>     ...
>>>>>>>>>     clang a.o b.o c.o ... -o executable
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 2. clang -O0 -c -emit-llvm -o source.bc
>>>>>>>>>     opt -O3 source.bc -o source.bc
>>>>>>>>>     llc -O3 -filetype=obj source.bc -o source.o
>>>>>>>>>     ...
>>>>>>>>>     clang a.o b.o c.o ... -o executable
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I took a look at the source code of the clang tool and the opt
>>>>>>>>> tool, they both seem to use the PassManagerBuilder::populateModulePassManager()
>>>>>>>>> and PassManagerBuilder::populateFunctionPassManager() functions
>>>>>>>>> to add passes to their optimization pipeline; and for the backend, the
>>>>>>>>> clang and llc both use the addPassesToEmitFile() function to generate
>>>>>>>>> object code.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So presumably the above two approaches to generating optimized
>>>>>>>>> executable file should do the same thing. However, I am seeing that the
>>>>>>>>> second approach is around 2% slower than the first approach (which is the
>>>>>>>>> way developers usually use) pretty consistently.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Can anyone point me to the reasons why this happens? Or even
>>>>>>>>> correct my wrong understanding of the relationship between these two
>>>>>>>>> approaches?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> PS: I used the -debug-pass=Structure option to print out the
>>>>>>>>> passes, they seem the same except that the first approach has an extra pass
>>>>>>>>> called "-add-discriminator", but I don't think that's the reason.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Peizhao
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>>>>>>>>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
>>>>>>>>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>>>>>>>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
>>>>>>>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>>>>>>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
>>>>>>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>>>>>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
>>>>>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>

_______________________________________________
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/llvm-dev/attachments/20180106/deda8419/attachment.html>

More information about the llvm-dev mailing list