[llvm-dev] [RFC] Adding support for marking allocator functions in LLVM IR

[Philip Reames via llvm-dev]

On 1/5/22 2:32 PM, Augie Fackler via llvm-dev wrote:
>
> Hi everyone! I’m working on making the Rust compiler being able to 
> track LLVM HEAD more closely, and as part of that we need to obviate a 
> patch[0] that teaches LLVM about some Rust allocator implementation 
> details. This proposal is the product of many conversations and a 
> couple of failed attempts at simpler implementations.
>
>
> Background
>
> ========
>
> Rust uses LLVM for codegen, and has its own allocator functions. In 
> order for LLVM to correctly optimize out allocations we have to tell 
> the optimizer about the allocation/deallocation functions used by Rust.
>
>
> Languages supported by Clang, such as C and C++, have stable symbol 
> names for their allocation functions, which are hardcoded in 
> LLVM[1][2]. Unfortunately, this strategy does not work for Rust, where 
> developers don't want to commit to a particular symbol name and 
> calling convention yet.
>
>
> Proposal
>
> =======
>
> We add two attributes to LLVM IR:
>
>
>  * `allocator(FAMILY)`: Marks a function as part of an allocator 
> family, named by the “primary” allocation function (e.g. 
> `allocator(“malloc”)`, `allocator(“_Znwm”)`, or 
> `allocator(“__rust_alloc”)`).
>
>
>  * `releaseptr(idx)`: Indicates that the function releases the pointer 
> that is its Nth argument.
>
Can you expand a bit on the motivation for this one?  What are some 
small examples that you think this will enable?

I don't see how this could allow allocation elimination without 
aggressive inlining.  Maybe you could use it to prove a particular bit 
of storage is undefined after return, but what does that buy you in 
terms of practical optimization benefit?  Do you have something else in 
mind?

p.s. In terms of spelling, I strongly agree with the suggestion 
elsewhere to recast this as a parameter attribute and use the "free" 
naming.


>
> These attributes, combined with the existing `allocsize(n[, m])` 
> attribute lets us annotate alloc, realloc, and free type functions in 
> LLVM IR, which relieves Rust of the need to carry a patch to describe 
> its allocator functions to LLVM’s optimizer. Some example IR of what 
> this might look like:
>
>
> ; Function Attrs: nounwind ssp
>
> define i8* @test5(i32 %n) #4 {
>
> entry:
>
>   %0 = tail call noalias dereferenceable_or_null(20) i8* @malloc(i32 
> 20) #8
>
>   %1 = load i8*, i8** @s, align 8
>
>   call void @llvm.memcpy.p0i8.p0i8.i32(i8* noundef nonnull align 1 
> dereferenceable(10) %0, i8* noundef nonnull align 1 
> dereferenceable(10) %1, i32 10, i1 false) #0
>
>   ret i8* %0
>
> }
>
>
> attributes #8 = { nounwind allocsize(0) "allocator"="malloc" }
>
>
> Similarly, the call `free(foo)` would get the attributes 
> `”allocator”=”malloc” releaseptr(1)` and `realloc(foo, N)` gets 
> `”allocator”=”malloc” releaseptr(1) allocsize(1)`. Note that the 
> `releaseptr(n)` attribute is 1-indexed to avoid issues with storing 
> zero values in attributes in my current draft - I’m very open to 
> suggestions to change that, this just seemed like the right solution 
> rather than adding getters/setters everywhere to increment/decrement a 
> value.
>
>
> Benefits
>
> =======
>
> In addition to the benefits for Rust, the LLVM optimizer could also be 
> improved to not optimize away defects like
>
>
> {
>
>   auto *foo = new Thing();
>
>   free(foo);
>
> }
>
>
> which would then correctly crash instead of silently “working” until 
> something actually uses the allocation. Similarly, there’s a potential 
> defect when only one side of an overridden operator::new and 
> operator::delete is visible to the optimizer and inlineable, which can 
> look indistinguishable from the above after inlining.
>
>
> This also probably opens the door to fixing issues like 
> https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=49022 
> <https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=49022>caused by overloading the 
> `builtin` annotation on allocator functions, but I’m unlikely to 
> continue in that direction.
>
>
> What do people think?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Augie
>
>
> [0] 
> https://github.com/rust-lang/llvm-project/commit/b1f55f7159540862c407a2d89d49434ce65892e5 
> <https://github.com/rust-lang/llvm-project/commit/b1f55f7159540862c407a2d89d49434ce65892e5>
>
> [1] 
> https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/cd5f582c3dd747ab97b57df37642b0dffba398ee/llvm/lib/Analysis/MemoryBuiltins.cpp#L73 
> <https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/cd5f582c3dd747ab97b57df37642b0dffba398ee/llvm/lib/Analysis/MemoryBuiltins.cpp#L73>
>
> [2] 
> https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/cd5f582c3dd747ab97b57df37642b0dffba398ee/llvm/lib/Analysis/MemoryBuiltins.cpp#L433 
> <https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/cd5f582c3dd747ab97b57df37642b0dffba398ee/llvm/lib/Analysis/MemoryBuiltins.cpp#L433>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20220106/9fd84aef/attachment.html>