llvm dev - Jun 2012 - [LLVMdev] [llvm-commits] [PATCH] Allow per-thread re-direction of outs()/errs()

On Jun 1, 2012, at 11:13 PM, Justin Holewinski wrote:
>> In a way, they are.  What if I want a debug trace in a multi-threaded
context?  Right now, all threads would just spew to the same stream and the
result would be unreadable.  If you allow threads to setup their own outs() and
errs() streams (transparently to the rest of LLVM), you can intercept these as
you see fit, perhaps dumping each to a separate file.  I acknowledge that you
could also enforce single-threaded execution for debug runs, but what if you are
in the context of a library with no valid stdout/stderr buffers?
>> 
> 
> This doesn't make any sense.  There is very little sense in trying to
use DEBUG (which gets compiled out of optimized builds) in a multithreaded
context.  Polluting the purity of outs() and errs() because of this sort of use
case doesn't make any sense to me.
> 
> outs() and errs() are useful independent of how LLVM happens to use them. 
The extensions that you are proposing doesn't make any sense give nthe
design of raw_ostream.
> 
> Is the problem more that outs() and errs() should always point to valid
stdout/stderr streams, regardless of how the hosting compiler is implemented?
No.  outs() and errs() are equivalent to stdout and stderr.  Your request to
change how they work to be thread local is like saying that we should change how
printf works because LLVM is misusing printf somewhere.
> If so, how do you feel about introducing a new global stream, logs()?  This
could replace all uses of outs()/errs() in the LLVM libraries, and default to
errs().  Existing command-line tools could just use this default, but compilers
that are hosted inside of libraries or other non-command line scenarios can
attach a custom stream to logs() that captures all LLVM output, including DEBUG
and any legitimate pass output.  Command-line tools can continue to use
outs()/errs() just as they do now.  Nothing would really change in the way LLVM
operates by default
In fact, before we had raw_ostream, we had a dbgs() sort of stream, which was
intended to be used in debug statements.  I'm not strongly opposed to this
(it would be much better than violating the sanctity of outs() :), but I'm
still unclear why you care so much about DEBUG output.  If we had a dbgs()
again, it should *only* be used from within DEBUG macros (for example, the
linker shouldn't use it).  Would that be enough to achieve your goal?

-Chris
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20120602/0c9d0f61/attachment.html>

On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 8:56 AM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com>
wrote:
> On Jun 1, 2012, at 11:13 PM, Justin Holewinski wrote:
>
> In a way, they are.  What if I want a debug trace in a multi-threaded
>> context?  Right now, all threads would just spew to the same stream and
the
>> result would be unreadable.  If you allow threads to setup their own
outs()
>> and errs() streams (transparently to the rest of LLVM), you can
intercept
>> these as you see fit, perhaps dumping each to a separate file.  I
>> acknowledge that you could also enforce single-threaded execution for
debug
>> runs, but what if you are in the context of a library with no valid
>> stdout/stderr buffers?
>>
>>
>> This doesn't make any sense.  There is very little sense in trying
to use
>> DEBUG (which gets compiled out of optimized builds) in a multithreaded
>> context.  Polluting the purity of outs() and errs() because of this
sort of
>> use case doesn't make any sense to me.
>>
>> outs() and errs() are useful independent of how LLVM happens to use
them.
>>  The extensions that you are proposing doesn't make any sense give
nthe
>> design of raw_ostream.
>>
>
> Is the problem more that outs() and errs() should always point to valid
> stdout/stderr streams, regardless of how the hosting compiler is
> implemented?
>
>
> No.  outs() and errs() are equivalent to stdout and stderr.  Your request
> to change how they work to be thread local is like saying that we should
> change how printf works because LLVM is misusing printf somewhere.
>
Fair enough.  I've always been under the impression that outs() and errs()
were simply convenience wrappers around *some* output mechanism, not
strictly just stdout/stderr.

>
> If so, how do you feel about introducing a new global stream, logs()?
>  This could replace all uses of outs()/errs() in the LLVM libraries, and
> default to errs().  Existing command-line tools could just use this
> default, but compilers that are hosted inside of libraries or other
> non-command line scenarios can attach a custom stream to logs() that
> captures all LLVM output, including DEBUG and any legitimate pass output.
>  Command-line tools can continue to use outs()/errs() just as they do now.
>  Nothing would really change in the way LLVM operates by default
>
>
> In fact, before we had raw_ostream, we had a dbgs() sort of stream, which
> was intended to be used in debug statements.  I'm not strongly opposed
to
> this (it would be much better than violating the sanctity of outs() :), but
> I'm still unclear why you care so much about DEBUG output.  If we had a
> dbgs() again, it should *only* be used from within DEBUG macros (for
> example, the linker shouldn't use it).  Would that be enough to achieve
> your goal?
>
It's not so much DEBUG output that I care specifically about, that's
just
an example of a place where the LLVM libraries assume an stderr stream
exists and is freely writable.  What I really want is a way to capture
*all* LLVM library output that would normally go to stderr, similar to how
Clang has its Diagnostic functionality that allows a driver to collect all
output messages.

There are legitimate cases where passes may output warnings or even errors
that the compiler should be able to direct to the user.  errs() is fine for
this if you know you're working with a command-line tool, but that's not
always true.

It sounds like dbgs() is not really the solution here, since I want to
capture more than just DEBUG output.  If the module linker wants to output
a warning, I want to capture that.  If an optimization pass wants to emit a
performance warning, I want to capture that too.  Neither of these cases
are DEBUG-only.

I see two possible solutions:

   1. For every pass (or class) that may emit warnings/errors, provide it a
   raw_ostream instance.  This seems to be how some of the utility classes
   work now, but this puts a burden on the compiler to know which passes
   actually need a raw_ostream parameter.  If you want to add a warning output
   to any pass, you need to change its interface (create***Pass and
   constructor) to add the raw_ostream parameter.
   2. Provide a generic mechanism through which passes and any other
   utility classes can write warning/error information.  This gives more
   control to the compiler without introducing any interface changes.

Option (1) is do-able, but option (2) seems more general.  The specifics of
the implementation that I envision are:

   - logs() is added as another stream to raw_ostream.h
   - By default, logs() forwards to errs()  [no change in the way LLVM
   works in the default case]
   - Any pass or utility class that wants to emit warnings/errors should
   write to logs() instead of errs()
   - DEBUG code should use logs() instead of errs()  [again, this will
   default to errs()]
   - An API is provided that allows a client to re-direct logs() to any
   arbitrary raw_ostream, on a per-thread level

You could also envision something along the lines of Clang's Diagnostics
functionality.  You could thread a diagnostics interface through the pass
manager, and passes could output any messages as diagnostics.  These
diagnostics would be collected and the compiler could query for them after
the pass manager completes.

>
> -Chris
>


-- 

Thanks,

Justin Holewinski
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20120602/7bc2256b/attachment.html>

If I may add my two cents:

I am planning to use LLVM as the backend for a compiler I am working on.
 And I wholeheartedly agree with Justin that it is a problem, if LLVM is
allowed to freely write to stdout and stderr as it is a component which can
be used in all sorts of code, be it a GUI IDE, a CLI driver, or whatever.

Also, I have a number of times wondered about the somewhat unusual use of
error strings in LLVM (that you pass in a string, which can be assigned a
descriptive error message).  Better would be, IMHO, to provide an interface
along the lines of this:

class ErrorHandler
{
public:
        virtual void Report(ErrorKind kind, uint code, const Position
&position, const unichar *text, ...) = 0;
};

And then let the client, i.e. the frontend, derive from it and handle all
the output in whichever way it wants to.  The above example is probably too
complex for LLVM, but that's what I use in my compiler.  ErrorKind is
ErrorKind_Fatal, ErrorKind_Error, etc.  Position is simply a filename, a
line number, and a character position.  unichar is either char or wchar_t,
depending on the build mode and target environment.

I hook it up so that I can buffer all errors encountered for later user.


Cheers,
Mikael
-- Love Thy Frog!

2012/6/2 Justin Holewinski <justin.holewinski at gmail.com>
> On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 8:56 AM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com>
wrote:
>
>> On Jun 1, 2012, at 11:13 PM, Justin Holewinski wrote:
>>
>>  In a way, they are.  What if I want a debug trace in a multi-threaded
>>> context?  Right now, all threads would just spew to the same stream
and the
>>> result would be unreadable.  If you allow threads to setup their
own outs()
>>> and errs() streams (transparently to the rest of LLVM), you can
intercept
>>> these as you see fit, perhaps dumping each to a separate file.  I
>>> acknowledge that you could also enforce single-threaded execution
for debug
>>> runs, but what if you are in the context of a library with no valid
>>> stdout/stderr buffers?
>>>
>>>
>>> This doesn't make any sense.  There is very little sense in
trying to
>>> use DEBUG (which gets compiled out of optimized builds) in a
multithreaded
>>> context.  Polluting the purity of outs() and errs() because of this
sort of
>>> use case doesn't make any sense to me.
>>>
>>> outs() and errs() are useful independent of how LLVM happens to use
>>> them.  The extensions that you are proposing doesn't make any
sense give
>>> nthe design of raw_ostream.
>>>
>>
>> Is the problem more that outs() and errs() should always point to valid
>> stdout/stderr streams, regardless of how the hosting compiler is
>> implemented?
>>
>>
>> No.  outs() and errs() are equivalent to stdout and stderr.  Your
request
>> to change how they work to be thread local is like saying that we
should
>> change how printf works because LLVM is misusing printf somewhere.
>>
>
> Fair enough.  I've always been under the impression that outs() and
errs()
> were simply convenience wrappers around *some* output mechanism, not
> strictly just stdout/stderr.
>
>
>>
>> If so, how do you feel about introducing a new global stream, logs()?
>>  This could replace all uses of outs()/errs() in the LLVM libraries,
and
>> default to errs().  Existing command-line tools could just use this
>> default, but compilers that are hosted inside of libraries or other
>> non-command line scenarios can attach a custom stream to logs() that
>> captures all LLVM output, including DEBUG and any legitimate pass
output.
>>  Command-line tools can continue to use outs()/errs() just as they do
now.
>>  Nothing would really change in the way LLVM operates by default
>>
>>
>> In fact, before we had raw_ostream, we had a dbgs() sort of stream,
which
>> was intended to be used in debug statements.  I'm not strongly
opposed to
>> this (it would be much better than violating the sanctity of outs() :),
but
>> I'm still unclear why you care so much about DEBUG output.  If we
had a
>> dbgs() again, it should *only* be used from within DEBUG macros (for
>> example, the linker shouldn't use it).  Would that be enough to
achieve
>> your goal?
>>
>
> It's not so much DEBUG output that I care specifically about,
that's just
> an example of a place where the LLVM libraries assume an stderr stream
> exists and is freely writable.  What I really want is a way to capture
> *all* LLVM library output that would normally go to stderr, similar to how
> Clang has its Diagnostic functionality that allows a driver to collect all
> output messages.
>
> There are legitimate cases where passes may output warnings or even errors
> that the compiler should be able to direct to the user.  errs() is fine for
> this if you know you're working with a command-line tool, but
that's not
> always true.
>
> It sounds like dbgs() is not really the solution here, since I want to
> capture more than just DEBUG output.  If the module linker wants to output
> a warning, I want to capture that.  If an optimization pass wants to emit a
> performance warning, I want to capture that too.  Neither of these cases
> are DEBUG-only.
>
> I see two possible solutions:
>
>    1. For every pass (or class) that may emit warnings/errors, provide it
>    a raw_ostream instance.  This seems to be how some of the utility
classes
>    work now, but this puts a burden on the compiler to know which passes
>    actually need a raw_ostream parameter.  If you want to add a warning
output
>    to any pass, you need to change its interface (create***Pass and
>    constructor) to add the raw_ostream parameter.
>    2. Provide a generic mechanism through which passes and any other
>    utility classes can write warning/error information.  This gives more
>    control to the compiler without introducing any interface changes.
>
> Option (1) is do-able, but option (2) seems more general.  The specifics
> of the implementation that I envision are:
>
>    - logs() is added as another stream to raw_ostream.h
>    - By default, logs() forwards to errs()  [no change in the way LLVM
>    works in the default case]
>    - Any pass or utility class that wants to emit warnings/errors should
>    write to logs() instead of errs()
>    - DEBUG code should use logs() instead of errs()  [again, this will
>    default to errs()]
>    - An API is provided that allows a client to re-direct logs() to any
>    arbitrary raw_ostream, on a per-thread level
>
> You could also envision something along the lines of Clang's
Diagnostics
> functionality.  You could thread a diagnostics interface through the pass
> manager, and passes could output any messages as diagnostics.  These
> diagnostics would be collected and the compiler could query for them after
> the pass manager completes.
>
>
>>
>> -Chris
>>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Thanks,
>
> Justin Holewinski
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20120602/48ef7ca1/attachment.html>

On Jun 2, 2012, at 10:12 AM, Justin Holewinski wrote:
>> If so, how do you feel about introducing a new global stream, logs()? 
This could replace all uses of outs()/errs() in the LLVM libraries, and default
to errs().  Existing command-line tools could just use this default, but
compilers that are hosted inside of libraries or other non-command line
scenarios can attach a custom stream to logs() that captures all LLVM output,
including DEBUG and any legitimate pass output.  Command-line tools can continue
to use outs()/errs() just as they do now.  Nothing would really change in the
way LLVM operates by default
> 
> In fact, before we had raw_ostream, we had a dbgs() sort of stream, which
was intended to be used in debug statements.  I'm not strongly opposed to
this (it would be much better than violating the sanctity of outs() :), but
I'm still unclear why you care so much about DEBUG output.  If we had a
dbgs() again, it should *only* be used from within DEBUG macros (for example,
the linker shouldn't use it).  Would that be enough to achieve your goal?
> 
> It's not so much DEBUG output that I care specifically about,
that's just an example of a place where the LLVM libraries assume an stderr
stream exists and is freely writable.
Ok, then lets ignore DEBUG.  It is completely irrelevant to any software that
ships with disabled assertions.  The reason that this came up was because of
your assertion that LLVM writes to outs() and errs() all over the place.  This
simply isn't true if you ignore DEBUG.
> It sounds like dbgs() is not really the solution here, since I want to
capture more than just DEBUG output.
Right.
> What I really want is a way to capture *all* LLVM library output that would
normally go to stderr, similar to how Clang has its Diagnostic functionality
that allows a driver to collect all output messages.
Fine, this should be done by fixing the few places (like the linker) that are
misbehaving.
> There are legitimate cases where passes may output warnings or even errors
that the compiler should be able to direct to the user.  errs() is fine for this
if you know you're working with a command-line tool, but that's not
always true.
> 
>  If the module linker wants to output a warning, I want to capture that. 
If an optimization pass wants to emit a performance warning, I want to capture
that too.  Neither of these cases are DEBUG-only.
Neither of these use cases are a good use for raw_ostream.  We have a
diagnostics API that the backend uses.  A random optimization pass should *not*
use errs() ever, it should use the diagnostics API (see
llvm/Support/ErrorHandling.h).
> I see two possible solutions:
> For every pass (or class) that may emit warnings/errors, provide it a
raw_ostream instance.  This seems to be how some of the utility classes work
now, but this puts a burden on the compiler to know which passes actually need a
raw_ostream parameter.  If you want to add a warning output to any pass, you
need to change its interface (create***Pass and constructor) to add the
raw_ostream parameter.
> Provide a generic mechanism through which passes and any other utility
classes can write warning/error information.  This gives more control to the
compiler without introducing any interface changes.
We already have #2.  It supports (for example) source location information, and
is already used by clang and the backend in some places.
> Option (1) is do-able, but option (2) seems more general.  The specifics of
the implementation that I envision are:
> logs() is added as another stream to raw_ostream.h
> By default, logs() forwards to errs()  [no change in the way LLVM works in
the default case]
> Any pass or utility class that wants to emit warnings/errors should write
to logs() instead of errs()
> DEBUG code should use logs() instead of errs()  [again, this will default
to errs()]
> An API is provided that allows a client to re-direct logs() to any
arbitrary raw_ostream, on a per-thread level
Please stop focusing on *streams*.  If you actually want to capture useful
diagnostic output, starting with text is already a lost cause.

-Chris
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20120603/1362b78e/attachment.html>