llvm dev - Dec 2015 - Proposal for multi location debug info support in LLVM IR

Hi folks,

I've discussed my desire to have multi location debug info support in LLVM
IR with some of you before (and others - apologies if I forgot to CC you).
I finally found some time to write down my thoughts about how this should
work at the IR level and worked out the proposal below. Please let me know
if this a) also does what you want out of it, b) seems like a sane way to
encode things in the IR c) you see any obstacles in implementation.
This is a very rough draft, so I expect there may be several iterations, so
I'll try to keep https://gist.github.com/Keno/480b8057df1b7c63c321 updated
with the current iteration. Have at it:

==============================================================
# What is it? / Why do we want this?

At any given time, the value of a source variable may be available in more
than
one place. The most common case is that the variable is available in memory
as
well as loaded in a register, but esp. in higher level languages where the
notion of a variable is more disconnected from the physical realities,
there can
also be situations where you can find the same value in multiple places in
memory, or perhaps more commonly, their being multiple ways to get to the
same
value in memory (e.g. through the GC frame and the argument register).

One can represent this in DWARF (i.e. ranges can overlap), but perhaps more
importantly one can avoid having to make a choice about which value to
track in
mid level optimizations. The answer will generally depend on which value
will
live longer, but at that stage we do not know that information yet. As a
concrete example, InstCombine will currently replace llvm.dbg.declare but
llvm.dbg.values on every load and store, expecting the alloca to get
removed,
but if that assumption is wrong, we get worse debug info than we would have
without replacing the declare. With multiple location support, both
locations
can be described and either both emitted to DWARF, or we can chose the one
that
is live longer and emit that.

As such, there is two separate but related goals:

    1. Allow frontends to describe complex situations where variables may be
       available in more than one location.
    2. Provide a coherent framework for describing the locations of source
       variables in the optimization pipeline to improve debug info quality.

This proposal concerns the IR format for encoding this information.
Separately,
getting this info into DWARF will require additional work, some of which has
already been done in D11933 and D11986. The backend work is outside the
scope
of this proposal.

# Goals of this design

I tried to come up with a scheme that is a minimal modification of the
existing
mechanism to ease upgrading for both frontends and optimizers, but still
separates the three concerns I think are required for multiple locations
support

    - Indicating that a value changed at source level (e.g. because an
      assignment occurred)
    - Indicating that the same value is now available in a new location
    - Indicating that a value is no longer available in some location

The last one is required in order to be able describe e.g. stack slot
coloring,
where a memory location may cease to describe a variable even though the
value
remained the same at source level.

# The Proposal

I propose changing the llvm.dbg.value intrinsic from (note I'm ignoring the
i64
offset argument which is already essentially dead and I expect it to be
removed
soon)

    void @llvm.dbg.value(metadata, metadata, metadata)

to

    token @llvm.dbg.value(token, metadata, metadata, metadata)

with the semantics being the following:

    - A change of value of a variable is indicated by (pseudeo-IR)

        %first = call token @llvm.dbg.value(token undef, metadata %val,
                                            metadata !var, metadata !expr)

      for the purpose of this proposal, I'll denote such a call (with undef
      first argument) as a `key call`.

    - To add a location with the same value for the same variable, you pass
the
      token of the FIRST llvm.dbg.value, as this llvm.dbg.value's first
argument
      E.g. to add another location for the variable above:

        %second = call token @llvm.dbg.value(token %first, metadata %val2,
                                            metadata !var, metadata !expr2)

    - To indicate that a location will no longer hold a value, you do the
      following:

        call token @llvm.dbg.value(token %second, metadata token undef,
                                  metadata !var, metadata !())

    - The current set of locations for a variable at a given instruction
are all
      those llvm.dbg.value instructions that dominate this location (
      equivalently all those llvm.dbg.value calls whose token you could use
at
      that location without upsetting the Verifier), except that if more
than
      one key call is dominating, only the most recent one and all calls
      associated to it by first argument count.

I think that should encapsulate the semantics, but here are some
consequences
of and comments on the above that I think would be useful to discuss:

    - The upgrade path for existing IR is very simple and just consists of
      adding token undef as the first argument to any call in the IR.

    - In general, if a value gets removed by an optimization, the
corresponding
      llvm.dbg.value call can be removed, unless that call is a key call, in
      which case the value should be undefed out. This is necessary both to
be
      able to keep it around as the first argument to the other calls, and
more
      importantly to mark the end point of a previous set of locations.

    - I'm, not sure I like the location removal incantation, since it
doesn't
      seem super intuitive, however, I did not want to introduce an extra
      intrinsic just for this purpose. The second argument being a token
      guarantees that just undefing out an instruction will not turn a
location
      add into a location remove of the key call.

    - It should be noted that for optimized (pseudo-C) source like:

        if (foo) {
            x = a;
        } else {
            x = b;
        }

      the IR would have to look like:

        if.true:
            %xtrue = ... (a)
            call token llvm.dbg.value(token undef, %xtrue, !var, !())
            br cont
        if.false:
            %xfalse = ... (b)
            call token llvm.dbg.value(token undef, %xfalse, !var, !())
            br cont
        cont:
            %x = phi [%xtrue, %if.true], [%xfalse, %if.false]
            call token llvm.dbg.value(token undef, %x, !var, !())

      as the live range of the debug value would end at the end of the
      respective basic block.

    - A related concern is what the following:

        call token llvm.dbg.value(token undef, %xold, !var, !())
        if.true:
            %xtrue = ... (a)
            call token llvm.dbg.value(token undef, %xtrue, !var, !())
            br cont
        if.false:
            %xfalse = ... (b)
            call token llvm.dbg.value(token undef, %xfalse, !var, !())
            br cont
        cont:
            %x = phi [%xtrue, %if.true], [%xfalse, %if.false]

      (i.e. the above but with a forgotten llvm.dbg.value in the cont
block).
      By the semantics I have written above, `cont` would again have %xold
as
      the value for %x, even though there was an intermediate assignment. I
am
      not sure if this represents a problem, but it might at the very least
be
      unexpected.

    - Do we run into problems in whatever MSVC's equivalent for debug info
is.

    - I think llvm.dbg.declare can be deprecated and it's uses replaced by
      llvm.dbg.value with an DW_OP_deref. That would also clarify the
semantics
      of the operation which have caused some confusion in the past.

    - We may want to add an extra pass that does debug info inference (some
of
      which is done in InstCombine right now)

Here are some of the invariants, the verifier would enforce (included in the
hope that they can clarify anything in the above):

    1. If the first argument is not token undef, then
        a. If the second argument is not token undef,
            I. the first argument must be a call to llvm.dbg.value whose
first
               argument is token undef
        b. If the second argument is token undef
            II.  the first argument must be a call to llvm.dbg.value whose
second
                 argument is not token undef
            III. the expression argument must be empty
        c. In either case, the variable described must be the same as the
one
           described by the call that is the first argument.
        d. There may not be another call to llvm.dbg.value with token undef
           that dominates this instruction, is not the one passed as the
first
           argument and is dominated by the one passed as the first
argument.
    2. All other invariants regarding calls to llvm.dbg.value carry over
       unchanged
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20151226/e0c8c758/attachment.html>

> On Dec 26, 2015, at 1:23 PM, Keno Fischer <kfischer at
college.harvard.edu> wrote:
> 
> Hi folks, 
> 
> I've discussed my desire to have multi location debug info support in
LLVM IR with some of you before (and others - apologies if I forgot to CC you).
I finally found some time to write down my thoughts about how this should work
at the IR level and worked out the proposal below. Please let me know if this a)
also does what you want out of it, b) seems like a sane way to encode things in
the IR c) you see any obstacles in implementation.
> This is a very rough draft, so I expect there may be several iterations, so
I'll try to keep https://gist.github.com/Keno/480b8057df1b7c63c321 updated
with the current iteration. Have at it:
Thanks for proposing this! I have a couple of questions to better help me
understand the proposal inline:
> 
> ==============================================================> 
> # What is it? / Why do we want this?
> 
> At any given time, the value of a source variable may be available in more
than
> one place. The most common case is that the variable is available in memory
as
> well as loaded in a register, but esp. in higher level languages where the
> notion of a variable is more disconnected from the physical realities,
there can
> also be situations where you can find the same value in multiple places in
> memory, or perhaps more commonly, their being multiple ways to get to the
same
> value in memory (e.g. through the GC frame and the argument register).
> 
> One can represent this in DWARF (i.e. ranges can overlap),
The DWARF 5 standard says that
"Address range entries in a range list may not overlap.”

The reasoning behind this is presumably that if a variable is in more than one
location at a point all the values need to be identical, or the information is
useless.
>  but perhaps more
> importantly one can avoid having to make a choice about which value to
track in
> mid level optimizations.
I like this motivation better.
> The answer will generally depend on which value will
> live longer, but at that stage we do not know that information yet. As a
> concrete example, InstCombine will currently replace llvm.dbg.declare but
> llvm.dbg.values on every load and store, expecting the alloca to get
removed,
> but if that assumption is wrong, we get worse debug info than we would have
> without replacing the declare. With multiple location support, both
locations
> can be described and either both emitted to DWARF, or we can chose the one
that
> is live longer and emit that.
> 
> As such, there is two separate but related goals:
> 
>     1. Allow frontends to describe complex situations where variables may
be
>        available in more than one location.
>     2. Provide a coherent framework for describing the locations of source
>        variables in the optimization pipeline to improve debug info
quality.
> 
> This proposal concerns the IR format for encoding this information.
Separately,
> getting this info into DWARF will require additional work, some of which
has
> already been done in D11933 and D11986. The backend work is outside the
scope
> of this proposal.
> 
> # Goals of this design
> 
> I tried to come up with a scheme that is a minimal modification of the
existing
> mechanism to ease upgrading for both frontends and optimizers, but still
> separates the three concerns I think are required for multiple locations
support
> 
>     - Indicating that a value changed at source level (e.g. because an
>       assignment occurred)
>     - Indicating that the same value is now available in a new location
>     - Indicating that a value is no longer available in some location
> 
> The last one is required in order to be able describe e.g. stack slot
coloring,
> where a memory location may cease to describe a variable even though the
value
> remained the same at source level.
Sounds all good.
> 
> # The Proposal
> 
> I propose changing the llvm.dbg.value intrinsic from (note I'm ignoring
the i64
> offset argument which is already essentially dead and I expect it to be
removed
> soon)
Indeed, soon™.
> 
>     void @llvm.dbg.value(metadata, metadata, metadata)
> 
> to
> 
>     token @llvm.dbg.value(token, metadata, metadata, metadata)
> 
> with the semantics being the following:
> 
>     - A change of value of a variable is indicated by (pseudeo-IR)
> 
>         %first = call token @llvm.dbg.value(token undef, metadata %val,
>                                             metadata !var, metadata !expr)
> 
>       for the purpose of this proposal, I'll denote such a call (with
undef
>       first argument) as a `key call`.
> 
>     - To add a location with the same value for the same variable, you pass
the
>       token of the FIRST llvm.dbg.value, as this llvm.dbg.value's first
argument
>       E.g. to add another location for the variable above:
> 
>         %second = call token @llvm.dbg.value(token %first, metadata %val2,
>                                             metadata !var, metadata !expr2)
Does this invalidate the first location, or does this add an additional location
to the set of locations for var at this point? If I want to add a third
location,
which token do I pass in? Can you explain a bit more what information the token
allows us to express that is currently not possible?
> 
>     - To indicate that a location will no longer hold a value, you do the
>       following:
> 
>         call token @llvm.dbg.value(token %second, metadata token undef,
>                                   metadata !var, metadata !())
> 
>     - The current set of locations for a variable at a given instruction
are all
>       those llvm.dbg.value instructions that dominate this location (
>       equivalently all those llvm.dbg.value calls whose token you could use
at
>       that location without upsetting the Verifier), except that if more
than
>       one key call is dominating, only the most recent one and all calls
>       associated to it by first argument count.
> 
> I think that should encapsulate the semantics, but here are some
consequences
> of and comments on the above that I think would be useful to discuss:
> 
>     - The upgrade path for existing IR is very simple and just consists of
>       adding token undef as the first argument to any call in the IR.
> 
>     - In general, if a value gets removed by an optimization, the
corresponding
>       llvm.dbg.value call can be removed, unless that call is a key call,
in
>       which case the value should be undefed out. This is necessary both to
be
>       able to keep it around as the first argument to the other calls, and
more
>       importantly to mark the end point of a previous set of locations.
So if %val is optimized out in the following example:

  %first = call token @llvm.dbg.value(token undef, metadata %val,
                                      metadata !var, metadata !expr)
  ...
  %second = call token @llvm.dbg.value(token %first, metadata %val2,
                                       metadata !var, metadata !expr2)

Does this turns into:

  call token @llvm.dbg.value(token undef, metadata %undef,
                             metadata !var, metadata !expr)
  %second = call token @llvm.dbg.value(token %undef, metadata %val2,
                                       metadata !var, metadata !expr2)

Or do we still have a %first token, or does the key call get removed entirely,
because
the second one is now a key call?
> 
>     - I'm, not sure I like the location removal incantation, since it
doesn't
>       seem super intuitive, however, I did not want to introduce an extra
>       intrinsic just for this purpose. The second argument being a token
>       guarantees that just undefing out an instruction will not turn a
location
>       add into a location remove of the key call.
> 
>     - It should be noted that for optimized (pseudo-C) source like:
> 
>         if (foo) {
>             x = a;
>         } else {
>             x = b;
>         }
> 
>       the IR would have to look like:
> 
>         if.true:
>             %xtrue = ... (a)
>             call token llvm.dbg.value(token undef, %xtrue, !var, !())
>             br cont
>         if.false:
>             %xfalse = ... (b)
>             call token llvm.dbg.value(token undef, %xfalse, !var, !())
>             br cont
>         cont:
>             %x = phi [%xtrue, %if.true], [%xfalse, %if.false]
>             call token llvm.dbg.value(token undef, %x, !var, !())
> 
>       as the live range of the debug value would end at the end of the
>       respective basic block.
> 
>     - A related concern is what the following:
> 
>         call token llvm.dbg.value(token undef, %xold, !var, !())
>         if.true:
>             %xtrue = ... (a)
>             call token llvm.dbg.value(token undef, %xtrue, !var, !())
>             br cont
>         if.false:
>             %xfalse = ... (b)
>             call token llvm.dbg.value(token undef, %xfalse, !var, !())
>             br cont
>         cont:
>             %x = phi [%xtrue, %if.true], [%xfalse, %if.false]
> 
>       (i.e. the above but with a forgotten llvm.dbg.value in the cont
block).
>       By the semantics I have written above, `cont` would again have %xold
as
>       the value for %x, even though there was an intermediate assignment. I
am
>       not sure if this represents a problem, but it might at the very least
be
>       unexpected.
> 
>     - Do we run into problems in whatever MSVC's equivalent for debug
info is.
> 
>     - I think llvm.dbg.declare can be deprecated and it's uses replaced
by
>       llvm.dbg.value with an DW_OP_deref. That would also clarify the
semantics
>       of the operation which have caused some confusion in the past.
I think we could already remove it today without any loss of generality (by 
lifting any dbg.value whose first argument is an alloca into the MMI table).
What I see this proposal adding is a way to mark the end of a range, which
is important when a value is on the stack only for part of the function (as
in the stack coloring example).
> 
>     - We may want to add an extra pass that does debug info inference (some
of
>       which is done in InstCombine right now)
What kind of inference does InstCombine do currently?
> 
> Here are some of the invariants, the verifier would enforce (included in
the
> hope that they can clarify anything in the above):
> 
>     1. If the first argument is not token undef, then
>         a. If the second argument is not token undef,
>             I. the first argument must be a call to llvm.dbg.value whose
first
>                argument is token undef
>         b. If the second argument is token undef
>             II.  the first argument must be a call to llvm.dbg.value whose
second
>                  argument is not token undef
>             III. the expression argument must be empty
>         c. In either case, the variable described must be the same as the
one
>            described by the call that is the first argument.
>         d. There may not be another call to llvm.dbg.value with token undef
>            that dominates this instruction, is not the one passed as the
first
>            argument and is dominated by the one passed as the first
argument.
>     2. All other invariants regarding calls to llvm.dbg.value carry over
>        unchanged
> 

-- adrian

Thanks for your comments. Replies inline.

> The DWARF 5 standard says that
> "Address range entries in a range list may not overlap.”
>
> The reasoning behind this is presumably that if a variable is in more than
> one
> location at a point all the values need to be identical, or the
> information is useless

Oh huh, for some reason I was under the impression that they could. No
matter, all we would have to do then is choose one in the backend. I think
it makes sense to maintain the notion of separate multiple locations until
then.

> >
> >     - To add a location with the same value for the same variable, you
> pass the
> >       token of the FIRST llvm.dbg.value, as this llvm.dbg.value's
first
> argument
> >       E.g. to add another location for the variable above:
> >
> >         %second = call token @llvm.dbg.value(token %first, metadata
> %val2,
> >                                             metadata !var, metadata
> !expr2)
>
> Does this invalidate the first location, or does this add an additional
> location
> to the set of locations for var at this point? If I want to add a third
> location,
> which token do I pass in? Can you explain a bit more what information the
> token
> allows us to express that is currently not possible?
>
It adds a second location. If you want to add a third location you pass in
the first token again.
Thus the first call (key call) indicates a change of values, and all
locations that have the same value should use the key call's token.

> >
> >     - To indicate that a location will no longer hold a value, you do
the
> >       following:
> >
> >         call token @llvm.dbg.value(token %second, metadata token
undef,
> >                                   metadata !var, metadata !())
> >
> >     - The current set of locations for a variable at a given
instruction
> are all
> >       those llvm.dbg.value instructions that dominate this location (
> >       equivalently all those llvm.dbg.value calls whose token you
could
> use at
> >       that location without upsetting the Verifier), except that if
more
> than
> >       one key call is dominating, only the most recent one and all
calls
> >       associated to it by first argument count.
> >
> > I think that should encapsulate the semantics, but here are some
> consequences
> > of and comments on the above that I think would be useful to discuss:
> >
> >     - The upgrade path for existing IR is very simple and just
consists
> of
> >       adding token undef as the first argument to any call in the IR.
> >
> >     - In general, if a value gets removed by an optimization, the
> corresponding
> >       llvm.dbg.value call can be removed, unless that call is a key
> call, in
> >       which case the value should be undefed out. This is necessary
both
> to be
> >       able to keep it around as the first argument to the other calls,
> and more
> >       importantly to mark the end point of a previous set of
locations.
>
> So if %val is optimized out in the following example:
>
>   %first = call token @llvm.dbg.value(token undef, metadata %val,
>                                       metadata !var, metadata !expr)
>   ...
>   %second = call token @llvm.dbg.value(token %first, metadata %val2,
>                                        metadata !var, metadata !expr2)
>
> Does this turns into:
>
>   call token @llvm.dbg.value(token undef, metadata %undef,
>                              metadata !var, metadata !expr)
>   %second = call token @llvm.dbg.value(token %undef, metadata %val2,
>                                        metadata !var, metadata !expr2)
>
> Or do we still have a %first token, or does the key call get removed
> entirely, because
> the second one is now a key call?
>
I think the situation is the following:
If %second is the only use of %first, we can do that optimization. If not
and %second dominates all uses of first, we could also do this optimization
and replace all uses of %first with %second. However, we cannot remove the
actual first key call, because it denotes the end location for the previous
value of the same variable. Two exceptions I could think of are if %first
is the first call for that variable in the function (as then there can not
be a previous range to terminate) or if there are no other calls or memory
operations in between %first and %second, in which case we could hoist
%second up and merge the two calls. Does that make sense?

> >
> >     - I think llvm.dbg.declare can be deprecated and it's uses
replaced
> by
> >       llvm.dbg.value with an DW_OP_deref. That would also clarify the
> semantics
> >       of the operation which have caused some confusion in the past.
>
> I think we could already remove it today without any loss of generality (by
> lifting any dbg.value whose first argument is an alloca into the MMI
> table).
> What I see this proposal adding is a way to mark the end of a range, which
> is important when a value is on the stack only for part of the function (as
> in the stack coloring example).

Agreed!

> >
> >     - We may want to add an extra pass that does debug info inference
> (some of
> >       which is done in InstCombine right now)
>
> What kind of inference does InstCombine do currently?

I was thinking of replacing llvm.dbg.declare by appropriate llvm.dbg.value
at each load/store.
In the new design that would essentially be an inference pass which would
add those as
locations, with the original one only removed if the alloca actually gets
lifted into registers.

> >
> > Here are some of the invariants, the verifier would enforce (included
in
> the
> > hope that they can clarify anything in the above):
> >
> >     1. If the first argument is not token undef, then
> >         a. If the second argument is not token undef,
> >             I. the first argument must be a call to llvm.dbg.value
whose
> first
> >                argument is token undef
> >         b. If the second argument is token undef
> >             II.  the first argument must be a call to llvm.dbg.value
> whose second
> >                  argument is not token undef
> >             III. the expression argument must be empty
> >         c. In either case, the variable described must be the same as
> the one
> >            described by the call that is the first argument.
> >         d. There may not be another call to llvm.dbg.value with token
> undef
> >            that dominates this instruction, is not the one passed as
the
> first
> >            argument and is dominated by the one passed as the first
> argument.
> >     2. All other invariants regarding calls to llvm.dbg.value carry
over
> >        unchanged
> >
>
>
> -- adrian
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160104/15079400/attachment.html>