[llvm-dev] Switching to the New Pass Manager by Default

[Jordan Rupprecht via llvm-dev]

OK. I have a tsan crash to report, will file shortly :)

FWIW, we've been using the new pass manager for a long time now in our
non-sanitizer builds, and haven't noticed issues other than a few compiler
crashes, which mostly seem due to people testing only with the legacy pass
manager.

On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 2:29 PM Leonard Chan <leonardchan at google.com> wrote:

> I believe a good amount of them (if not most of them) have already been
> ported! Off the top of my head, I remember that asan, tsan, msan, hwasan,
> the kernel santizers, and sancov have been ported. I don't think ubsan has
> been ported yet though.
>
> You can also check if other passes you need run under the new PM by
> checking PassRegistry.def.
>
> On Fri, Aug 2, 2019, 14:20 Jordan Rupprecht <rupprecht at google.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Leonard,
>> Is the new pass manager expected to work with sanitizers now?
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 1:25 PM Leonard Chan via llvm-dev <
>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>
>>> I think so far most individual projects have their own statistics on
>>> build time/performance impact on switching to the new PM, but I agree that
>>> there should at least be one place that people can reference on the impact.
>>>
>>> On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 1:14 PM Philip Reames <listmail at philipreames.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Thanks for all the hard work that went into getting it here.
>>>>
>>>> +1
>>>>
>>>> Can you spell out what performance validation has been done?
>>>> Informally, I know there's been quite a bit, but getting a summary in one
>>>> place for later reference would be super helpful.
>>>>
>>>> Philip
>>>> On 8/2/19 10:25 AM, Leonard Chan via llvm-dev wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hello all,
>>>>
>>>> As of now, all LLVM and Clang tests have been updated/addressed to run
>>>> under the new/experimental pass manager (at least the ones that failed when
>>>> using the new PM).
>>>>
>>>> For those who aren't aware of what the new pass manager (PM) is, the
>>>> tl;dr is that this will serve as a replacement for the legacy PM, and
>>>> promises faster build times by restructuring how passes are run over IR
>>>> units. For some time, when someone wants to create a new pass, they may
>>>> need to implement it for both pass managers since the legacy one is what is
>>>> enabled by default. Passes that were initially made under the new PM have
>>>> also slowly been ported over time.
>>>>
>>>> Now that LLVM 9.0.0 has branched, we have about 6 months before the
>>>> next release. We think it would be a good idea to take this opportunity and
>>>> make the new PM the default one which gives us enough time to work out any
>>>> kinks that might come out of this switch before LLVM 10.0.0 branch point.
>>>> We suspect that there may be other LLVM projects that will be affected by
>>>> this, probably from unported passes.
>>>>
>>>> Does anyone have any opinions on this?
>>>>
>>>> Off the top of my head, the next immediate work would be to update the
>>>> docs with instructions on how to write or port a new PM pass, and address
>>>> any breakages for other LLVM projects.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Leonard
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> LLVM Developers mailing listllvm-dev at lists.llvm.orghttps://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
>>> https://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/20190802/a4d83ced/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4849 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20190802/a4d83ced/attachment-0001.bin>