[llvm-dev] Eliminating global memory roots (or not) to help leak checkers
Vitaly Buka via llvm-dev
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Wed Apr 14 14:52:26 PDT 2021
On Wed, 14 Apr 2021 at 09:39, Sterling Augustine via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> [Continuing discussion from https://reviews.llvm.org/D69428]
> Llvm is fairly conservative when eliminating global variables (or fields
> of such) that may point to dynamically allocated memory. This behavior is
> entirely to help leak checking tools such as Valgrind, Google's
> HeapLeakChecker, and LSAN, all of which treat memory that is reachable at
> exit as "not leaked", even though it will never be freed. Without these
> global variables to hold the pointer, the leak checkers can't determine
> that it is actually reachable, and will report a leak. Global variables
> that dynamically allocate memory but don't clean themselves up are fairly
> common in the wild, and various leak checkers have long not reported errors.
> This behavior was added all the way back in 2012 in
> https://reviews.llvm.org/D69428 removed this behavior, and I subsequently
> reverted it when many internal Google tests started failing, but I believe
> many other users who use leak checking will encounter errors when this hits
> more mainstream releases.
> So: What to do?
> Preventing a valid transformation (the global variables are never read and
> can be eliminated) to help the leak checkers leaves some performance and
> code size on the table. Just how much is unclear.
> On the other hand, having leak checkers suddenly start reporting failures
> where they didn't before also seems suboptimal. Cleaning this somewhat
> common scenario up is surprisingly difficult at the user level.
> Some possibilities:
> 1. Only do this at high optimization levels, say -O3. This would give
> aggressive users all the performance we can, but also make leak checkers
> report leaks sometimes, but not others.
This could be disabled for Asan by default as it very likely runs with lsan.
> 2. Hide it behind a flag or configurable option. Users who care can set it
> as they prefer. Creates more confusing options, different testing matrices
> and such, but everyone can get the behaviour that they want.
> 3. Do it all the time, and users who encounter issues can clean up their
> code. Users get the most performance they possibly can, but have to clean
> up code or drop leak checking. Seems a little user hostile.
I expect this requires significant cleanup effort, and not just in Google.
It's quite a common pattern, but it would be nice to see some real data.
> Other possibilities?:
5. Maybe replace writes into such removed global with no-op callback which
can be intercepted by LeakChecker? This will prevent other
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the llvm-dev