[llvm-dev] RFC: LLVM Assembly format for ThinLTO Summary

[David Blaikie via llvm-dev]

On Thu, May 3, 2018 at 3:08 PM Peter Collingbourne via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:

> On Thu, May 3, 2018 at 2:44 PM, Mehdi AMINI <joker.eph at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Le mar. 1 mai 2018 à 16:50, Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google.com> a
>> écrit :
>>
>>> Hi Mehdi, thanks for the comments, responses and a tweaked proposal
>>> below. Teresa
>>>
>>> On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 11:37 AM, Mehdi AMINI <joker.eph at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> My main concern is this one:
>>>>
>>>> > Currently, I am emitting the summary entries at the end, after the
>>>> metadata nodes. Note that the ModuleSummaryIndex is not currently
>>>> referenced from the Module, and isn’t currently created when parsing the
>>>> Module IR bitcode (there is a separate derived class for reading the
>>>> ModuleSummaryIndex from bitcode). This is because they are not currently
>>>> used at the same time. However, in the future there is no reason why we
>>>> couldn’t tag the global values in the Module’s LLVM assembly with the
>>>> corresponding summary entry if the ModuleSummaryIndex is available when
>>>> printing the Module in the assembly writer. I.e. we could do the following
>>>> for “main” from the above example when printing the IR definition (note the
>>>> “^3” at the end):
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I believe the reason that the ModuleSummaryIndex is not attached to the
>>>> Module is that it is fundamentally not a piece of IR, but it is
>>>> conceptually really an Analysis result.
>>>> Usually other analyses don't serialize their result, we happen to
>>>> serialize this one for an optimization purpose (reloading it and making the
>>>> thin-link faster).
>>>>
>>>
>>> True. My understanding is that the push for having it serialized via
>>> assembly is due to the fact that it is emitted into the bitcode. I know
>>> there is disagreement on this reasoning, I am hoping to have a proposal
>>> that is acceptable to everyone. =)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> The fundamental problem is that an analysis result has to be able to be
>>>> invalidated with IR changes, attaching this directly to the module wouldn't
>>>> achieve this. The risk is that when the IR and the summary get out-of-sync
>>>> (`clang -O2 my_module_with_summaries.ll -emit-llvm -o my_optimized
>>>> module_with_summaries.ll`) the summaries would be badly wrong.
>>>>
>>>> Have you looked into what it'd take to make it a "real" analysis in the
>>>> pass manager?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks for raising this issue specifically, I hadn't addressed it in my
>>> proposal and it is a big one. I am not proposing that we attempt to
>>> maintain the summary through optimization passes, and definitely don't
>>> think we should do that. IMO deserializing it should be for testing the
>>> thin link and the combined summaries in the backends only. To that end, I
>>> have an idea (below some background first).
>>>
>>> Note that in some cases the module summary analysis is an analysis pass.
>>> I.e. when invoked by "opt -module-summary=". However, some time ago when
>>> Peter added the support for splitting the bitcode (for CFI purposes) and
>>> therefore needed to generate a summary in each partition (Thin and
>>> Regular), he added the ThinLTOBitcodeWriterPass, which invokes the module
>>> summary builder directly (twice). This writer is what gets invoked now when
>>> building via "clang -flto=thin", and with "opt -thinlto-bc". So there it is
>>> not invoked/maintained as an analysis pass/result. It would be tricky to
>>> figure out how to even split rather than recompute the module summary index
>>> in that case. Even in the case where we are still invoking as an analysis
>>> pass (opt -module-summary), we would need to figure out how to read in the
>>> module summary to use as the analysis result when available (so that it
>>> could be invalidated and recomputed when stale).
>>>
>>> Rather than add this plumbing, and just have it discarded if opt does
>>> any optimization, I think we should focus at least for the time being on
>>> supporting reading the summary from assembly exactly where we currently
>>> read in the summary from bitcode:
>>> 1) For the thin link (e.g. tools such as llvm-lto2 or llvm-lto, which
>>> currently have to be preceded by "opt -module-summary/-thinlto-bc" to
>>> generate an index, but could just build it from assembly instead).
>>> 2) For the LTO backends (e.g. tools such as llvm-lto which can consume a
>>> combined index and invoke the backends, or "clang -fthinlto-index=" for
>>> distributed ThinLTO backend testing), where we could build the combined
>>> summary index from assembly instead.
>>>
>>> This greatly simplifies the reading side, as there are no optimizations
>>> performed on the IR after the index is read in these cases that would
>>> require invalidation. It also simplifies adding the parsing support, since
>>> it gets invoked exactly where we expect to build an index currently (i.e.
>>> since we don't currently build or store the ModuleSummaryIndex when parsing
>>> the Module from bitcode). It doesn't preclude someone from figuring out how
>>> to compute the module summary analysis result from the assembly, and
>>> invalidating it after optimization, when reading the Module IR via 'opt' in
>>> the future.
>>>
>>> Does this seem like a reasonable proposal to everyone?
>>>
>>
>> Sounds good to me.
>>
>> That would make .ll files quite convenient during debugging I think? We
>> could disassemble, manually change summaries, and re-assemble a bitcode
>> file before running the (thin-)link again.
>>
>
> Yes, that seems more reasonable than what I thought you had in mind. If
> the only consumer of this information is llvm-as, then the purpose of the
> asm summary format is just to provide a way to create a .bc file for
> testing purposes, which is certainly a useful capability.
>

That feels a bit surprising if ".ll -> llvm-as -> .bc -> <some other tool -
opt, etc>" is different from ".ll -> <opt, etc>". Is that what we're
talking about here? Any chance that can be avoided & feeding a .ll file
works (in the sense of does the same thing/tests the same behavior) in all
the same places that feeding a .bc file does? (as is the case with
non-summary-based IR, to the best of my knowledge)


>
> Peter
>
>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> --
>> Mehdi
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Teresa
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Mehdi
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Le mar. 1 mai 2018 à 11:10, Peter Collingbourne <peter at pcc.me.uk> a
>>>> écrit :
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 9:00 AM, Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 10:21 AM Peter Collingbourne <peter at pcc.me.uk>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 8:32 AM, Teresa Johnson <
>>>>>>> tejohnson at google.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi Peter,
>>>>>>>> Thanks for your comments, replies below.
>>>>>>>> Teresa
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 2:08 PM Peter Collingbourne <
>>>>>>>> peter at pcc.me.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hi Teresa,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thanks for sending this proposal out.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I would again like to register my disagreement with the whole idea
>>>>>>>>> of writing summaries in LLVM assembly format. In my view it is clear that
>>>>>>>>> this is not the right direction, as it only invites additional complexity
>>>>>>>>> and more ways for things to go wrong for no real benefit. However, I don't
>>>>>>>>> have the energy to argue that point any further, so I won't stand in the
>>>>>>>>> way here.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I assume you are most concerned with the
>>>>>>>> re-assembly/deserialization of the summary. My main goal is to get this
>>>>>>>> dumped into a text format, and I went this route since the last dumper RFC
>>>>>>>> was blocked with the LLVM assembly direction pushed.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, my main concern is with the deserialization. My view is that it
>>>>>>> should only be allowed for combined summaries -- allowing it for per-module
>>>>>>> is unnecessary as it creates the possibility of things gettting out of
>>>>>>> sync. Given that, we don't actually need an assembly representation and we
>>>>>>> can use whichever format is most convenient. But given the opposition to
>>>>>>> this viewpoint I am willing to concede getting the format (IMHO) right in
>>>>>>> favour of something that is acceptable to others, just so that we can test
>>>>>>> things in a more reasonable way.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 7:43 AM, Teresa Johnson <
>>>>>>>>> tejohnson at google.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hi everyone,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I started working on a long-standing request to have the summary
>>>>>>>>>> dumped in a readable format to text, and specifically to emit to LLVM
>>>>>>>>>> assembly. Proposal below, please let me know your thoughts.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>> Teresa
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> *RFC: LLVM Assembly format for ThinLTO
>>>>>>>>>> Summary========================================Background-----------------ThinLTO
>>>>>>>>>> operates on small summaries computed during the compile step (i.e. with “-c
>>>>>>>>>> -flto=thin”), which are then analyzed and updated during the Thin Link
>>>>>>>>>> stage, and utilized to perform IR updates during the post-link ThinLTO
>>>>>>>>>> backends. The summaries are emitted as LLVM Bitcode, however, not currently
>>>>>>>>>> in the LLVM assembly.There are two ways to generate a bitcode file
>>>>>>>>>> containing summary records for a module: 1. Compile with “clang -c
>>>>>>>>>> -flto=thin”2. Build from LLVM assembly using “opt -module-summary”Either of
>>>>>>>>>> these will result in the ModuleSummaryIndex analysis pass (which builds the
>>>>>>>>>> summary index in memory for a module) to be added to the pipeline just
>>>>>>>>>> before bitcode emission.Additionally, a combined index is created by
>>>>>>>>>> merging all the per-module indexes during the Thin Link, which is
>>>>>>>>>> optionally emitted as a bitcode file.Currently, the only way to view these
>>>>>>>>>> records is via “llvm-bcanalyzer -dump”, then manually decoding the raw
>>>>>>>>>> bitcode dumps.Relatedly, there is YAML reader/writer support for CFI
>>>>>>>>>> related summary fields (-wholeprogramdevirt-read-summary and
>>>>>>>>>> -wholeprogramdevirt-write-summary). Last summer, GSOC student Charles
>>>>>>>>>> Saternos implemented support to dump the summary in YAML from llvm-lto2
>>>>>>>>>> (D34080), including the rest of the summary fields (D34063), however, there
>>>>>>>>>> was pushback on the related RFC for dumping via YAML or another format
>>>>>>>>>> rather than emitting as LLVM assembly.Goals: 1. Define LLVM assembly format
>>>>>>>>>> for summary index2. Define interaction between parsing of summary from LLVM
>>>>>>>>>> assembly and synthesis of new summary index from IR.3. Implement printing
>>>>>>>>>> and parsing of summary index LLVM assemblyProposed LLVM Assembly
>>>>>>>>>> Format----------------------------------------------There are several top
>>>>>>>>>> level data structures within the ModuleSummaryIndex: 1.
>>>>>>>>>> ModulePathStringTable: Holds the paths to the modules summarized in the
>>>>>>>>>> index (only one entry for per-module indexes and multiple in the combined
>>>>>>>>>> index), along with their hashes (for incremental builds and global
>>>>>>>>>> promotion).2. GlobalValueMap: A map from global value GUIDs to the
>>>>>>>>>> corresponding function/variable/alias summary (or summaries for the
>>>>>>>>>> combined index and weak linkage).3. CFI-related data structures (TypeIdMap,
>>>>>>>>>> CfiFunctionDefs, and CfiFunctionDecls)I have a WIP patch to AsmWriter.cpp
>>>>>>>>>> to print the ModuleSummaryIndex that I was using to play with the format.
>>>>>>>>>> It currently prints 1 and 2 above. I’ve left the CFI related summary data
>>>>>>>>>> structures as a TODO for now, until the format is at least conceptually
>>>>>>>>>> agreed, but from looking at those I don’t see an issue with using the same
>>>>>>>>>> format (with a note/question for Peter on CFI type test representation
>>>>>>>>>> below).I modeled the proposed format on metadata, with a few key
>>>>>>>>>> differences noted below. Like metadata, I propose enumerating the entries
>>>>>>>>>> with the SlotTracker, and prefixing them with a special character. Avoiding
>>>>>>>>>> characters already used in some fashion (i.e. “!” for metadata and “#” for
>>>>>>>>>> attributes), I initially have chosen “^”. Open to suggestions
>>>>>>>>>> though.Consider the following example:extern void foo();int X;int bar() {
>>>>>>>>>>  foo();  return X;}void barAlias() __attribute__ ((alias ("bar")));int
>>>>>>>>>> main() {  barAlias();  return bar();}The proposed format has one entry per
>>>>>>>>>> ModulePathStringTable entry and one per GlobalValueMap/GUID, and looks
>>>>>>>>>> like:^0 = module: {path: testA.o, hash: 5487197307045666224}^1 = gv: {guid:
>>>>>>>>>> 1881667236089500162, name: X, summaries: {variable: {module: ^0, flags:
>>>>>>>>>> {linkage: common, notEligibleToImport: 0, live: 0, dsoLocal: 1}}}}^2 = gv:
>>>>>>>>>> {guid: 6699318081062747564, name: foo}^3 = gv: {guid: 15822663052811949562,
>>>>>>>>>> name: main, summaries: {function: {module: ^0, flags: {linkage: extern,
>>>>>>>>>> notEligibleToImport: 1, live: 0, dsoLocal: 1}, insts: 5, funcFlags:
>>>>>>>>>> {readNone: 0, readOnly: 0, noRecurse: 0, returnDoesNotAlias: 0}, calls:
>>>>>>>>>> {{callee: ^5, hotness: unknown}, {callee: ^4, hotness: unknown}}}}}^4 = gv:
>>>>>>>>>> {guid: 16434608426314478903, name: bar, summaries: {function: {module: ^0,
>>>>>>>>>> flags: {linkage: extern, notEligibleToImport: 1, live: 0, dsoLocal: 1},
>>>>>>>>>> insts: 3, funcFlags: {readNone: 0, readOnly: 0, noRecurse: 0,
>>>>>>>>>> returnDoesNotAlias: 0}, calls: {{callee: ^2, hotness: unknown}}, refs:
>>>>>>>>>> {^1}}}}^5 = gv: {guid: 18040127437030252312, name: barAlias, summaries:
>>>>>>>>>> {alias: {module: ^0, flags: {linkage: extern, notEligibleToImport: 0, live:
>>>>>>>>>> 0, dsoLocal: 1}, aliasee: ^4}}}Like metadata, the fields are tagged
>>>>>>>>>> (currently using lower camel case, maybe upper camel case would be
>>>>>>>>>> preferable).The proposed format has a structure that reflects the data
>>>>>>>>>> structures in the summary index. For example, consider the entry “^4”. This
>>>>>>>>>> corresponds to the function “bar”. The entry for that GUID in the
>>>>>>>>>> GlobalValueMap contains a list of summaries. For per-module summaries such
>>>>>>>>>> as this, there will be at most one summary (with no summary list for an
>>>>>>>>>> external function like “foo”). In the combined summary there may be
>>>>>>>>>> multiple, e.g. in the case of linkonce_odr functions which have definitions
>>>>>>>>>> in multiple modules. The summary list for bar (“^4”) contains a
>>>>>>>>>> FunctionSummary, so the summary is tagged “function:”. The FunctionSummary
>>>>>>>>>> contains both a flags structure (inherited from the base GlobalValueSummary
>>>>>>>>>> class), and a funcFlags structure (specific to FunctionSummary). It
>>>>>>>>>> therefore contains a brace-enclosed list of flag tags/values for each.Where
>>>>>>>>>> a global value summary references another global value summary (e.g. via a
>>>>>>>>>> call list, reference list, or aliasee), the entry is referenced by its
>>>>>>>>>> slot. E.g. the alias “barAlias” (“^5”) references its aliasee “bar” as
>>>>>>>>>> “^4”.Note that in comparison metadata assembly entries tend to be much more
>>>>>>>>>> decomposed since many metadata fields are themselves metadata (so then
>>>>>>>>>> entries tend to be shorter with references to other metadata
>>>>>>>>>> nodes).Currently, I am emitting the summary entries at the end, after the
>>>>>>>>>> metadata nodes. Note that the ModuleSummaryIndex is not currently
>>>>>>>>>> referenced from the Module, and isn’t currently created when parsing the
>>>>>>>>>> Module IR bitcode (there is a separate derived class for reading the
>>>>>>>>>> ModuleSummaryIndex from bitcode). This is because they are not currently
>>>>>>>>>> used at the same time. However, in the future there is no reason why we
>>>>>>>>>> couldn’t tag the global values in the Module’s LLVM assembly with the
>>>>>>>>>> corresponding summary entry if the ModuleSummaryIndex is available when
>>>>>>>>>> printing the Module in the assembly writer. I.e. we could do the following
>>>>>>>>>> for “main” from the above example when printing the IR definition (note the
>>>>>>>>>> “^3” at the end):define  dso_local i32 @main() #0 !dbg !17 ^3 {For CFI data
>>>>>>>>>> structures, the format would be similar. It appears that TypeIds are
>>>>>>>>>> referred to by string name in the top level TypeIdMap (std::map indexed by
>>>>>>>>>> std::string type identifier), whereas they are referenced by GUID within
>>>>>>>>>> the FunctionSummary class (i.e. the TypeTests vector and the VFuncId
>>>>>>>>>> structure). For the LLVM assembly I think there should be a top level entry
>>>>>>>>>> for each TypeIdMap, which lists both the type identifier string and its
>>>>>>>>>> GUID (followed by its associated information stored in the map), and the
>>>>>>>>>> TypeTests/VFuncId references on the FunctionSummary entries can reference
>>>>>>>>>> it by summary slot number. I.e. something like:^1 = typeid: {guid: 12345,
>>>>>>>>>> identifier: name_of_type, …^2 = gv: {... {function: {.... typeTests: {^1,
>>>>>>>>>> …Peter - is that correct and does that sound ok?*
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I don't think that would work because the purpose of the top-level
>>>>>>>>> TypeIdMap is to contain resolutions for each type identifier, and
>>>>>>>>> per-module summaries do not contain resolutions (only the combined summary
>>>>>>>>> does). What that means in practice is that we would not be able to recover
>>>>>>>>> and write out a type identifier name for per-module summaries as part of ^1
>>>>>>>>> in your example (well, we could in principle, because the name is stored
>>>>>>>>> somewhere in the function's IR, but that could get complicated).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ah ok. I guess the top-level map then is generated by the regular
>>>>>>>> LTO portion of the link (since it presumably requires IR during the Thin
>>>>>>>> Link to get into the combined summary)?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, we fill in the map during the LowerTypeTests and
>>>>>>> WholeProgramDevirt passes in the regular LTO part of the link, e.g. here:
>>>>>>>  http://llvm-cs.pcc.me.uk/lib/Transforms/IPO/LowerTypeTests.cpp#823
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Probably the easiest thing to do is to keep the type identifiers as
>>>>>>>>> GUIDs in the function summaries and write out the mapping of type
>>>>>>>>> identifiers as a top-level entity.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> To confirm, you mean during the compile step create a top-level
>>>>>>>> entity that maps GUID -> identifier?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I mean that you could represent this with something like:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ^typeids = {^1, ^2, ^3}
>>>>>>> ^1 = typeid: {identifier: typeid1, ...}
>>>>>>> ^2 = typeid: {identifier: typeid2, ...}
>>>>>>> ^3 = typeid: {identifier: typeid3, ...}
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There's no need to store the GUIDs here because they can be computed
>>>>>>> from the type identifiers. The GUIDs would only be stored in the typeTests
>>>>>>> (etc.) fields in each function summary.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I suppose we don't need to store the GUIDs at the top level in the
>>>>>> in-memory summary. But I think it would be good to emit the GUIDs in the
>>>>>> typeid assembly entries because it makes the association in the assembly
>>>>>> much more obvious. I.e. going back to my original example:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ^1 = typeid: {guid: 12345, identifier: name_of_type, …
>>>>>> ^2 = gv: {... {function: {.... typeTests: {^1, …
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If we didn't include the GUID in the typeid entry, but rather just
>>>>>> the identifier, and put the GUID in the typeTest list in the GV's entry, it
>>>>>> wouldn't be obvious at all from the assembly listing which typeid goes with
>>>>>> which typeTest. It's also less compact to include the GUID in each
>>>>>> typeTests list.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I get that, but my point was that in a per-module summary the
>>>>> TypeIdMap is empty, so there will be no names, only GUIDs.
>>>>>
>>>>> For "making the association more obvious" we might just want to have
>>>>> the assembly writer emit the GUID of a name as a comment.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Or perhaps we are saying the same thing - I can't tell from your
>>>>>> above example if the GUID is also emitted in the "typeid:" entries.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> No, it wouldn't be.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm not sure there is a need for the:
>>>>>> ^typeids = {^1, ^2, ^3}
>>>>>> We can just build the typeids list on the fly as " = typeid: "
>>>>>> entries are read in.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That's true. Given that nothing actually needs to refer to them, we
>>>>> can just represent the typeids as something like
>>>>> typeid: {identifier: typeid1, ...} ; guid = 123
>>>>> typeid: {identifier: typeid2, ...} ; guid = 456
>>>>> typeid: {identifier: typeid3, ...} ; guid = 789
>>>>> without an associated number.
>>>>>
>>>>> Peter
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Teresa
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Peter
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>> Teresa
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Peter
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> *Issues when Parsing of Summaries from
>>>>>>>>>> Assembly--------------------------------------------------------------------When
>>>>>>>>>> reading an LLVM assembly file containing module summary entries, a
>>>>>>>>>> ModuleSummaryIndex will be created from the entries.Things to consider are
>>>>>>>>>> the behavior when: - Invoked with “opt -module-summary” (which currently
>>>>>>>>>> builds a new summary index from the IR). Options:1. recompute summary and
>>>>>>>>>> throw away summary in the assembly file2. ignore -module-summary and build
>>>>>>>>>> the summary from the LLVM assembly3. give an error4. compare the two
>>>>>>>>>> summaries (one created from the assembly and the new one created by the
>>>>>>>>>> analysis phase from the IR), and error if they are different.My opinion is
>>>>>>>>>> to do a),  so that the behavior using -module-summary doesn’t change. We
>>>>>>>>>> also need a way to force building of a fresh module summary for cases where
>>>>>>>>>> the user has modified the LLVM assembly of the IR (see below). - How to
>>>>>>>>>> handle older LLVM assembly files that don’t contain new summary fields.
>>>>>>>>>> Options:1. Force the LLVM assembly file to be recreated with a new summary.
>>>>>>>>>> I.e. “opt -module-summary -o - | llvm-dis”.2. Auto-upgrade, by silently
>>>>>>>>>> creating conservative values for the new summary entries.I lean towards b)
>>>>>>>>>> (when possible) for user-friendliness and to reduce required churn on test
>>>>>>>>>> inputs. - How to handle partial or incorrect LLVM assembly summary entries.
>>>>>>>>>> How to handle partial summaries depends in part on how we answer the prior
>>>>>>>>>> question about auto-upgrading. I think the best option like there is to
>>>>>>>>>> handle it automatically when possible. However, I do think we should error
>>>>>>>>>> on glaring errors like obviously missing information. For example, when
>>>>>>>>>> there is summary data in the LLVM assembly, but summary entries are missing
>>>>>>>>>> for some global values. E.g. if the user modified the assembly to add a
>>>>>>>>>> function but forgot to add a corresponding summary entry. We could still
>>>>>>>>>> have subtle issues (e.g. user adds a new call but forgets to update the
>>>>>>>>>> caller’s summary call list), but it will be harder to detect those.*
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>> Teresa Johnson |  Software Engineer |  tejohnson at google.com |
>>>>>>>>>> 408-460-2413 <(408)%20460-2413>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> Peter
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Teresa Johnson |  Software Engineer |  tejohnson at google.com |
>>>>>>>> 408-460-2413 <(408)%20460-2413>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Peter
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Teresa Johnson |  Software Engineer |  tejohnson at google.com |
>>>>>> 408-460-2413 <(408)%20460-2413>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> --
>>>>> Peter
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Teresa Johnson |  Software Engineer |  tejohnson at google.com |
>>> 408-460-2413 <(408)%20460-2413>
>>>
>>
>
>
> --
> --
> 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/llvm-dev/attachments/20180503/90df7874/attachment-0001.html>