thr3ads.net - llvm dev - [llvm-dev] Dangling debug value or bug in argument elimination pass? [Apr 2016]

If this information is useful, please help other people find it:
Share via:

Sergei Larin via llvm-dev

2016-Apr-15 18:56 UTC

[llvm-dev] Dangling debug value or bug in argument elimination pass?

I will start from afar… When a dead function argument is removed, should we keep
around the debug info for it?

 

I have the following case:

 

define internal fastcc void @foo(i8* %aa, i8* %reg, i8* %field, i32 %bb, ...)
unnamed_addr #3 !dbg !28 {

entry:

  call void @llvm.dbg.value(metabb i8* %aa, i64 0, metabb !34, metabb !47), !dbg
!57

  call void @llvm.dbg.value(metabb i8* %reg, i64 0, metabb !35, metabb !47),
!dbg !58

  call void @llvm.dbg.value(metabb i8* %field, i64 0, metabb !36, metabb !47),
!dbg !59

  call void @llvm.dbg.value(metabb i32 %bb, i64 0, metabb !37, metabb !47), !dbg
!60

 

During dead argument elimination pass, some of the arguments are found “dead”
(which they are) and removed, without removing  their correspondent
llvm.dbg.value:

 

...

DAE - Removing argument 1 (reg) from foo

DAE - Removing argument 2 (field) from foo

...

…

 

define internal fastcc void @foo(i8* %aa, i32 %bb, ...) unnamed_addr #3 !dbg !28
{

entry:

  call void @llvm.dbg.value(metabb !2, i64 0, metabb !34, metabb !47), !dbg !57

  call void @llvm.dbg.value(metabb i8* null, i64 0, metabb !35, metabb !47),
!dbg !58

  call void @llvm.dbg.value(metabb i8* null, i64 0, metabb !36, metabb !47),
!dbg !59

  call void @llvm.dbg.value(metabb !2, i64 0, metabb !37, metabb !47), !dbg !60

 
>From that point on we carry dead debug info and correspondent metadata
(DILocalVariable):
 

!33 = !{!34, !35, !36, !37, ...}

!34 = !DILocalVariable(name: "aa", arg: 1, scope: !28, file: !11,
line: 90, type: !14)

!35 = !DILocalVariable(name: "reg", arg: 2, scope: !28, file: !11,
line: 90, type: !31)

!36 = !DILocalVariable(name: "field", arg: 3, scope: !28, file: !11,
line: 90, type: !31)

!37 = !DILocalVariable(name: "bb", arg: 4, scope: !28, file: !11,
line: 90, type: !6)

 

In some instances it is wasteful but harmless, in others verifier is extremely
unhappy about it.

 

The question is:

1)      Should llvm.dbg.value for dead argument has been deleted?

2)      Should DILocalVariable has been deleted?

 

Thanks…

 

 

Sergei

 

---

Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The
Linux Foundation

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160415/a66be887/attachment.html>

David Blaikie via llvm-dev

2016-Apr-15 19:38 UTC

head link

[llvm-dev] Dangling debug value or bug in argument elimination pass?

Unclear. It's going to be awkward for debug info regardless (describing the
variable is important to name lookup, describing the parameter's more
important just so the user can at least see it's optimized out - but could
break the ability to invoke the function (because the debugger may use all
the function parameters to figure out the ABI, even if the parameter
doesn't have a location description))

Certainly we shouldn't create stuff that the verifier thinks is bad (do you
have a specific example of where that comes up?) but I don't know whether
the fix is in the creation, the verifier, or both.

On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 11:56 AM, Sergei Larin via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
>
> I will start from afar… When a dead function argument is removed, should
> we keep around the debug info for it?
>
>
>
> I have the following case:
>
>
>
> define internal fastcc void @foo(i8* %aa, i8* %reg, i8* %field, i32 %bb,
> ...) unnamed_addr #3 !dbg !28 {
>
> entry:
>
>   call void @llvm.dbg.value(metabb i8* %aa, i64 0, metabb !34, metabb
> !47), !dbg !57
>
>   call void @llvm.dbg.value(metabb i8* %reg, i64 0, metabb !35, metabb
> !47), !dbg !58
>
>   call void @llvm.dbg.value(metabb i8* %field, i64 0, metabb !36, metabb
> !47), !dbg !59
>
>   call void @llvm.dbg.value(metabb i32 %bb, i64 0, metabb !37, metabb
> !47), !dbg !60
>
>
>
> During dead argument elimination pass, some of the arguments are found
> “dead” (which they are) and removed, without removing  their correspondent
> llvm.dbg.value:
>
>
>
> ...
>
> DAE - Removing argument 1 (reg) from foo
>
> DAE - Removing argument 2 (field) from foo
>
> ...
>
> …
>
>
>
> define internal fastcc void @foo(i8* %aa, i32 %bb, ...) unnamed_addr #3
> !dbg !28 {
>
> entry:
>
>   call void @llvm.dbg.value(metabb !2, i64 0, metabb !34, metabb !47),
> !dbg !57
>
>   call void @llvm.dbg.value(metabb i8* null, i64 0, metabb !35, metabb
> !47), !dbg !58
>
>   call void @llvm.dbg.value(metabb i8* null, i64 0, metabb !36, metabb
> !47), !dbg !59
>
>   call void @llvm.dbg.value(metabb !2, i64 0, metabb !37, metabb !47),
> !dbg !60
>
>
>
> From that point on we carry dead debug info and correspondent metadata
> (DILocalVariable):
>
>
>
> !33 = !{!34, !35, !36, !37, ...}
>
> !34 = !DILocalVariable(name: "aa", arg: 1, scope: !28, file: !11,
line:
> 90, type: !14)
>
> !35 = !DILocalVariable(name: "reg", arg: 2, scope: !28, file:
!11, line:
> 90, type: !31)
>
> !36 = !DILocalVariable(name: "field", arg: 3, scope: !28, file:
!11, line:
> 90, type: !31)
>
> !37 = !DILocalVariable(name: "bb", arg: 4, scope: !28, file: !11,
line:
> 90, type: !6)
>
>
>
> In some instances it is wasteful but harmless, in others verifier is
> extremely unhappy about it.
>
>
>
> The question is:
>
> 1)      Should llvm.dbg.value for dead argument has been deleted?
>
> 2)      Should DILocalVariable has been deleted?
>
>
>
> Thanks…
>
>
>
>
>
> Sergei
>
>
>
> ---
>
> Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, hosted
> by The Linux Foundation
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> http://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/20160415/504f44c9/attachment-0001.html>

Sergei Larin via llvm-dev

2016-Apr-15 19:54 UTC

head link

[llvm-dev] Dangling debug value or bug in argument elimination pass?

> (do you have a specific example of where that comes up?)

Yes. If I use CloneFunctionInto on such scope, the hell breaks loose. At that
point I have debug entries that are effectively dead and not being updated
during cloning.

Unfortunately I do not yet have a clear test case that would show it on the
public tree…

Sergei

---

Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The
Linux Foundation

From: David Blaikie [mailto:dblaikie at gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2016 2:38 PM
To: Sergei Larin <slarin at codeaurora.org>
Cc: llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] Dangling debug value or bug in argument elimination
pass?

Unclear. It's going to be awkward for debug info regardless (describing the
variable is important to name lookup, describing the parameter's more
important just so the user can at least see it's optimized out - but could
break the ability to invoke the function (because the debugger may use all the
function parameters to figure out the ABI, even if the parameter doesn't
have a location description))

Certainly we shouldn't create stuff that the verifier thinks is bad (do you
have a specific example of where that comes up?) but I don't know whether
the fix is in the creation, the verifier, or both.

On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 11:56 AM, Sergei Larin via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> > wrote:

I will start from afar… When a dead function argument is removed, should we keep
around the debug info for it?

I have the following case:

define internal fastcc void @foo(i8* %aa, i8* %reg, i8* %field, i32 %bb, ...)
unnamed_addr #3 !dbg !28 {

entry:

  call void @llvm.dbg.value(metabb i8* %aa, i64 0, metabb !34, metabb !47), !dbg
!57

  call void @llvm.dbg.value(metabb i8* %reg, i64 0, metabb !35, metabb !47),
!dbg !58

  call void @llvm.dbg.value(metabb i8* %field, i64 0, metabb !36, metabb !47),
!dbg !59

  call void @llvm.dbg.value(metabb i32 %bb, i64 0, metabb !37, metabb !47), !dbg
!60

During dead argument elimination pass, some of the arguments are found “dead”
(which they are) and removed, without removing  their correspondent
llvm.dbg.value:

...

DAE - Removing argument 1 (reg) from foo

DAE - Removing argument 2 (field) from foo

...

…

define internal fastcc void @foo(i8* %aa, i32 %bb, ...) unnamed_addr #3 !dbg !28
{

entry:

  call void @llvm.dbg.value(metabb !2, i64 0, metabb !34, metabb !47), !dbg !57

  call void @llvm.dbg.value(metabb i8* null, i64 0, metabb !35, metabb !47),
!dbg !58

  call void @llvm.dbg.value(metabb i8* null, i64 0, metabb !36, metabb !47),
!dbg !59

  call void @llvm.dbg.value(metabb !2, i64 0, metabb !37, metabb !47), !dbg !60

>From that point on we carry dead debug info and correspondent metadata
(DILocalVariable):

!33 = !{!34, !35, !36, !37, ...}

!34 = !DILocalVariable(name: "aa", arg: 1, scope: !28, file: !11,
line: 90, type: !14)

!35 = !DILocalVariable(name: "reg", arg: 2, scope: !28, file: !11,
line: 90, type: !31)

!36 = !DILocalVariable(name: "field", arg: 3, scope: !28, file: !11,
line: 90, type: !31)

!37 = !DILocalVariable(name: "bb", arg: 4, scope: !28, file: !11,
line: 90, type: !6)

In some instances it is wasteful but harmless, in others verifier is extremely
unhappy about it.

The question is:

1)      Should llvm.dbg.value for dead argument has been deleted?

2)      Should DILocalVariable has been deleted?

Thanks…

Sergei

---

Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The
Linux Foundation

_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> 
http://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/20160415/69b2aa31/attachment.html>

Sergei Larin via llvm-dev

2016-Apr-20 18:11 UTC

head link

[llvm-dev] Dangling debug value or bug in argument elimination pass?

David, Peter, 

 

 

Let me try it one more time, now with an example… Short of upstreaming a fake
function clone pass,  let me only illustrate the issue in raw debug output.
Hopefully it should be sufficient.

 

Try this:

 

clang -Os -g -fno-strict-aliasing test_arg_del.ll  -mllvm -debug -mllvm
-print-after-all

 

After 

 

DAE - Removing argument 1 (reg) from foo

DAE - Removing argument 2 (field) from foo

DAE - Removing argument 4 (offset) from foo

 

We are going to have something like this:

 

*** IR Dump After Dead Argument Elimination ***; ModuleID =
'test_arg_del.ll'

…

 

define internal fastcc void @foo(i8* %base, i64 %data, i64 %shift) unnamed_addr
#3 !dbg !32 {

entry:

  …

  call void @llvm.dbg.value(metadata i8* null, i64 0, metadata !39, metadata
!20), !dbg !47

  call void @llvm.dbg.value(metadata i8* null, i64 0, metadata !40, metadata
!20), !dbg !48

 

These are debug calls for the removed arguments, with actual metadata attached
to it.  If this code is now cloned using llvm::CloneFunctionInto()… After
Peter’s patch was introduced:

 

commit af289e04413504c3bdc252e08c3fe17bf7ea6dc8

Author: Peter Collingbourne <peter at pcc.me.uk>

Date:   Wed Mar 30 22:05:13 2016 +0000

 

    Cloning: Reduce complexity of debug info cloning and fix correctness issue.

    

    Commit r260791 contained an error in that it would introduce a cross-module

    reference in the old module. It also introduced O(N^2) complexity in the

    module cloner by requiring the entire module to be visited for each
function.

    Fix both of these problems by avoiding use of the CloneDebugInfoMetadata

    function (which is only designed to do intra-module cloning) and cloning

    function-attached metadata in the same way that we clone all other metadata.

    

    Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D18583

    

    git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk at 264935
91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8

 

we will have stale DISubprogram because RemapInstruction called from
CloneFunctionInto() (here)

 

    // Loop over all instructions, fixing each one as we find it...

    for (Instruction &II : *BB) {

      RemapInstruction(&II, VMap,

                       ModuleLevelChanges ? RF_None : RF_NoModuleLevelChanges,

                       TypeMapper, Materializer);

    }

 

…will actually skip over “metadata i8* null” operands of “call void
@llvm.dbg.value” and will not update correspondent debug records… Now the first
time verifier takes a look at this, we got an assert.

 

 

 

 

 

 

My question is, conceptually, where this should be fixed? Should cloning code
somehow iterate over “unreachable” metadata in a function being cloned, or such
metadata should not have been allowed to remain after the dead argument removal?

If we want some debug info remain in place for removed argument (which is fine),
what should be passed to debug call? (how call void @llvm.dbg.value should look
like?)

 

I think the problem was there for a while, but until Peter fixed metadata
generation for cloned function in the mentioned patch, it did not surface.

 

Thanks for any leads and/or suggestions.

 

Sergei

 

 

---

Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The
Linux Foundation

 

From: David Blaikie [mailto:dblaikie at gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2016 2:38 PM
To: Sergei Larin <slarin at codeaurora.org>
Cc: llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] Dangling debug value or bug in argument elimination
pass?

 

Unclear. It's going to be awkward for debug info regardless (describing the
variable is important to name lookup, describing the parameter's more
important just so the user can at least see it's optimized out - but could
break the ability to invoke the function (because the debugger may use all the
function parameters to figure out the ABI, even if the parameter doesn't
have a location description))

Certainly we shouldn't create stuff that the verifier thinks is bad (do you
have a specific example of where that comes up?) but I don't know whether
the fix is in the creation, the verifier, or both.

 

On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 11:56 AM, Sergei Larin via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> > wrote:

 

I will start from afar… When a dead function argument is removed, should we keep
around the debug info for it?

 

I have the following case:

 

define internal fastcc void @foo(i8* %aa, i8* %reg, i8* %field, i32 %bb, ...)
unnamed_addr #3 !dbg !28 {

entry:

  call void @llvm.dbg.value(metabb i8* %aa, i64 0, metabb !34, metabb !47), !dbg
!57

  call void @llvm.dbg.value(metabb i8* %reg, i64 0, metabb !35, metabb !47),
!dbg !58

  call void @llvm.dbg.value(metabb i8* %field, i64 0, metabb !36, metabb !47),
!dbg !59

  call void @llvm.dbg.value(metabb i32 %bb, i64 0, metabb !37, metabb !47), !dbg
!60

 

During dead argument elimination pass, some of the arguments are found “dead”
(which they are) and removed, without removing  their correspondent
llvm.dbg.value:

 

...

DAE - Removing argument 1 (reg) from foo

DAE - Removing argument 2 (field) from foo

...

…

 

define internal fastcc void @foo(i8* %aa, i32 %bb, ...) unnamed_addr #3 !dbg !28
{

entry:

  call void @llvm.dbg.value(metabb !2, i64 0, metabb !34, metabb !47), !dbg !57

  call void @llvm.dbg.value(metabb i8* null, i64 0, metabb !35, metabb !47),
!dbg !58

  call void @llvm.dbg.value(metabb i8* null, i64 0, metabb !36, metabb !47),
!dbg !59

  call void @llvm.dbg.value(metabb !2, i64 0, metabb !37, metabb !47), !dbg !60

 
>From that point on we carry dead debug info and correspondent metadata
(DILocalVariable):
 

!33 = !{!34, !35, !36, !37, ...}

!34 = !DILocalVariable(name: "aa", arg: 1, scope: !28, file: !11,
line: 90, type: !14)

!35 = !DILocalVariable(name: "reg", arg: 2, scope: !28, file: !11,
line: 90, type: !31)

!36 = !DILocalVariable(name: "field", arg: 3, scope: !28, file: !11,
line: 90, type: !31)

!37 = !DILocalVariable(name: "bb", arg: 4, scope: !28, file: !11,
line: 90, type: !6)

 

In some instances it is wasteful but harmless, in others verifier is extremely
unhappy about it.

 

The question is:

1)      Should llvm.dbg.value for dead argument has been deleted?

2)      Should DILocalVariable has been deleted?

 

Thanks…

 

 

Sergei

 

---

Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The
Linux Foundation

 


_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> 
http://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/20160420/d48ded44/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: test_arg_del.ll
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 14137 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160420/d48ded44/attachment-0002.obj>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: test_arg_del.i
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 746 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160420/d48ded44/attachment-0003.obj>

Reasonably Related Threads

Search for more apparently analagous threads

llvm dev - Apr 2016 - Dangling debug value or bug in argument elimination pass?

[llvm-dev] Dangling debug value or bug in argument elimination pass?

[llvm-dev] Dangling debug value or bug in argument elimination pass?

[llvm-dev] Dangling debug value or bug in argument elimination pass?

[llvm-dev] Dangling debug value or bug in argument elimination pass?

Reasonably Related Threads