Reid Kleckner via llvm-dev
2016-Nov-29 17:14 UTC
[llvm-dev] RFC: Add an "interposible" linkage type (and implement -fsemantic-interposition)
I think that all makes sense. You're just adding the missing non-ODR
conterpart of 'external' linkage. I could imagine having "external
/
external_odr" linkage for example.
That said, do you think we should take the opportunity to split out a bit
for interposability so that we can kill off the *_odr linkage variants?
Today's non-ODR weak functions would look more like this:
define weak interposable void @foo() { ret void }
We could probably preserve bitcode compatibility by continuing to use the
old combined linkage encoding. This is useful because we want the old weak
to decode as weak+interposable and the old weak_odr to decode as weak.
Some more prior discussion: https://reviews.llvm.org/D19995#423481
On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 8:01 AM, Hal Finkel via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> Clang/LLVM's support for ELF interposition is in a confusing state, and
I
> propose making a few (hopefully simple) adjustments in order to bring our
> model into a self-consistent state.
>
> The problem: On ELF systems, global symbols can be interposed. This means,
> for example, that calls to global functions in some (shared) library
> defined in that same library might end up being redirected to an
> implementation in some other library (or in the main executable). The most
> common reason for this is the use of LD_PRELOAD, but there are plenty of
> other ways to trigger interposition as well. As a result, it is technically
> inconsistent to inline any global function or do inter-procedural analysis
> on them because the implementation might be replaced by code with
> completely different behavior at runtme (or link time). Clang has never
> supported this (i.e. we do treat these functions as being eligible for
> inlining and perform IPA on them). GCC, on the other hand, has
> traditionally respected the possibility of ELF interposition and refrained
> from doing these things (at least when compiling with -fPIC).
>
> I believe that Clang/LLVM's current behavior is the most-useful
behavior
> and we should keep the current behavior (at least as a default). I do
> understand, however, that there are valid use cases for ELF interposition
> and places where we should allow it (e.g. when compiling certain system
> libraries). GCC recently added a flag
-fsemantic-interposition/-fno-semantic-interposition,
> where using -fno-semantic-interposition provides Clang/LLVM's behavior
of
> assuming that ELF interposition will not be used.
>
> It has been suggested that, to be self consistent, LLVM should emit global
> symbols with protected ELF visibility in cases where we've assumed that
ELF
> interposition won't happen. ELF protected visibility does seem to have
> exactly that meaning: A protected global symbol is externally visible but
> cannot be interposed. Unfortunately, as I understand it, on some major
> platforms (e.g. x86), protected-visibility symbols have a major flaw:
> Non-uniqueness of function pointers (i.e. the function pointer obtained to
> a function outside of the defining library might be different from the
> pointer obtained within the defining library). As a result, making this
> change might be practically prohibited (even if it makes sense in theory).
>
> Proposal:
>
> 1. Add a new linkage type, interposible, which is like external except
> that isInterposableLinkage will return true (thus preventing inlining, IPA,
> etc.). This is similar to weak linkage, in a sense, except that such
> symbols are never discarded and are not marked as weak for linking, etc.
>
> 2. Add -fsemantic-interposition/-fno-semantic-interposition to Clang.
> Default to -fno-semantic-interposition, but when -fsemantic-interposition
> is used, use interposible linkage for all functions where external linkage
> might otherwise have been used.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Some useful links:
> http://hubicka.blogspot.com/2015/04/GCC5-IPA-LTO-news.html (the section
> on the -fno-semantic-interposition flag)
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-05/msg01671.html
>
> On some issues with ELF protected-visibility symbols:
> http://www.macieira.org/blog/2012/01/sorry-state-of-
> dynamic-libraries-on-linux/
> http://www.airs.com/blog/archives/307
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19520
>
> Thanks again,
> Hal
>
> P.S. For some previous discussion on this, see below...
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *From: *"Hal Finkel via llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org>
> *To: *"James Y Knight" <jyknight at google.com>
> *Cc: *"llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
> *Sent: *Monday, February 29, 2016 9:50:15 AM
> *Subject: *Re: [llvm-dev] Possible soundness issue with
> available_externally (split from "RFC: Add guard intrinsics")
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *From: *"James Y Knight" <jyknight at google.com>
> *To: *"Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov>
> *Cc: *"Sanjoy Das" <sanjoy at playingwithpointers.com>,
"llvm-dev" <
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
> *Sent: *Monday, February 29, 2016 9:31:24 AM
> *Subject: *Re: [llvm-dev] Possible soundness issue with
> available_externally (split from "RFC: Add guard intrinsics")
>
> On Feb 26, 2016 8:50 PM, "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov>
wrote:
>
>> *From: *"James Y Knight via llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org>
>> *To: *"Sanjoy Das" <sanjoy at playingwithpointers.com>
>> *Cc: *"llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
>> *Sent: *Thursday, February 25, 2016 1:41:43 PM
>> *Subject: *Re: [llvm-dev] Possible soundness issue with
>> available_externally (split from "RFC: Add guard intrinsics")
>>
>> While we're talking about this, I'd just mention again that the
same
>> issue arises for *normal* functions too, when linked into a shared
library:
>> int foo() { return 1; }
>> int bar() { return foo(); }
>>
>> Now, compare:
>> clang -fPIC -O1 -S -o - test.c
>> gcc -fPIC -O1 -S -o - test.c
>>
>> GCC will refuse to inline foo into bar, or use any information about
foo
>> in compiling bar, because foo is exported in the dynamic symbol table,
and
>> thus replaceable via symbol interposition.
>>
>> Clang assumes that you won't do that, or that you don't care
what happens
>> if you do. It will happily inline. And, in absense of inlining (e.g. if
foo
>> is too long to inline), clang will deduce function attributes about foo
and
>> rely on those in bar -- despite that the call goes through the PLT and
>> could in fact be an entirely different unrelated implementation (or,
for
>> that matter, a differently-optimized version of the same
implementation).
>>
>> Is that *really* okay?
>>
>> I'm comfortable with saying that symbol interposition falls outside
of
>> the model we have for the targeted system (at least by default), and
thus,
>> this is okay. We also don't model the possibility of someone
hex-editing
>> the binary ;)
>>
>
> I'm not really okay with it; the current behavior feels unprincipled.
>
> We have a visibility attribute which can be used to control this: On ELF
> systems, "default" visibililty allows interposition (unlike on
Darwin) --
> that is, it explicitly ALLOWS for replacing the symbol's definition.
The
> policy of "You can't replace the definition of the symbol, but it
is
> globally visible" is exactly what the "protected" visibility
mode is for.
>
> If we want to say that you can't interpose by default on ELF targets,
that
> would be a choice. Then, we should make the default symbol visibility
> "protected" instead of "default". But, continuing to
generate calls through
> the PLT -- which is only needed because the symbols might be replaced --
> while simultaneously making optimizations that are broken if they actually
> ARE replaced, seems kinda bogus.
>
> This makes sense, and I think you understand my concern here: Most
> programmers don't understand these issues, nor do they ever expect to
use
> dynamic interposition. They do expect, however, that the compiler has good
> IPA and will use the information it is provided effectively. I'd be
happy
> to make the default visibility protected, allowing us to continue
> optimizing well, and provide a principled behavior otherwise. Given, as you
> point out, this is the default on Darwin, is there experience from Darwin
> porting, or any other factors, that would indicate this would be a
hardship?
>
> Thanks again,
> Hal
>
> --
> Hal Finkel
> Assistant Computational Scientist
> Leadership Computing Facility
> Argonne National Laboratory
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>
>
>
>
> --
> Hal Finkel
> Lead, Compiler Technology and Programming Languages
> Leadership Computing Facility
> Argonne National Laboratory
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20161129/d2665d4e/attachment.html>
Eric Christopher via llvm-dev
2016-Nov-29 17:34 UTC
[llvm-dev] RFC: Add an "interposible" linkage type (and implement -fsemantic-interposition)
On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 9:15 AM Reid Kleckner via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:> I think that all makes sense. You're just adding the missing non-ODR > conterpart of 'external' linkage. I could imagine having "external / > external_odr" linkage for example. > > That said, do you think we should take the opportunity to split out a bit > for interposability so that we can kill off the *_odr linkage variants? > Today's non-ODR weak functions would look more like this: > define weak interposable void @foo() { ret void } > > We could probably preserve bitcode compatibility by continuing to use the > old combined linkage encoding. This is useful because we want the old weak > to decode as weak+interposable and the old weak_odr to decode as weak. > > Some more prior discussion: https://reviews.llvm.org/D19995#423481 > >+1 -eric> On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 8:01 AM, Hal Finkel via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Hi everyone, > > Clang/LLVM's support for ELF interposition is in a confusing state, and I > propose making a few (hopefully simple) adjustments in order to bring our > model into a self-consistent state. > > The problem: On ELF systems, global symbols can be interposed. This means, > for example, that calls to global functions in some (shared) library > defined in that same library might end up being redirected to an > implementation in some other library (or in the main executable). The most > common reason for this is the use of LD_PRELOAD, but there are plenty of > other ways to trigger interposition as well. As a result, it is technically > inconsistent to inline any global function or do inter-procedural analysis > on them because the implementation might be replaced by code with > completely different behavior at runtme (or link time). Clang has never > supported this (i.e. we do treat these functions as being eligible for > inlining and perform IPA on them). GCC, on the other hand, has > traditionally respected the possibility of ELF interposition and refrained > from doing these things (at least when compiling with -fPIC). > > I believe that Clang/LLVM's current behavior is the most-useful behavior > and we should keep the current behavior (at least as a default). I do > understand, however, that there are valid use cases for ELF interposition > and places where we should allow it (e.g. when compiling certain system > libraries). GCC recently added a flag > -fsemantic-interposition/-fno-semantic-interposition, where using > -fno-semantic-interposition provides Clang/LLVM's behavior of assuming that > ELF interposition will not be used. > > It has been suggested that, to be self consistent, LLVM should emit global > symbols with protected ELF visibility in cases where we've assumed that ELF > interposition won't happen. ELF protected visibility does seem to have > exactly that meaning: A protected global symbol is externally visible but > cannot be interposed. Unfortunately, as I understand it, on some major > platforms (e.g. x86), protected-visibility symbols have a major flaw: > Non-uniqueness of function pointers (i.e. the function pointer obtained to > a function outside of the defining library might be different from the > pointer obtained within the defining library). As a result, making this > change might be practically prohibited (even if it makes sense in theory). > > Proposal: > > 1. Add a new linkage type, interposible, which is like external except > that isInterposableLinkage will return true (thus preventing inlining, IPA, > etc.). This is similar to weak linkage, in a sense, except that such > symbols are never discarded and are not marked as weak for linking, etc. > > 2. Add -fsemantic-interposition/-fno-semantic-interposition to Clang. > Default to -fno-semantic-interposition, but when -fsemantic-interposition > is used, use interposible linkage for all functions where external linkage > might otherwise have been used. > > Thoughts? > > Some useful links: > http://hubicka.blogspot.com/2015/04/GCC5-IPA-LTO-news.html (the section > on the -fno-semantic-interposition flag) > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-05/msg01671.html > > On some issues with ELF protected-visibility symbols: > > http://www.macieira.org/blog/2012/01/sorry-state-of-dynamic-libraries-on-linux/ > http://www.airs.com/blog/archives/307 > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19520 > > Thanks again, > Hal > > P.S. For some previous discussion on this, see below... > > ------------------------------ > > *From: *"Hal Finkel via llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> > *To: *"James Y Knight" <jyknight at google.com> > *Cc: *"llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> > *Sent: *Monday, February 29, 2016 9:50:15 AM > *Subject: *Re: [llvm-dev] Possible soundness issue with > available_externally (split from "RFC: Add guard intrinsics") > > > ------------------------------ > > *From: *"James Y Knight" <jyknight at google.com> > *To: *"Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov> > *Cc: *"Sanjoy Das" <sanjoy at playingwithpointers.com>, "llvm-dev" < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> > *Sent: *Monday, February 29, 2016 9:31:24 AM > *Subject: *Re: [llvm-dev] Possible soundness issue with > available_externally (split from "RFC: Add guard intrinsics") > > On Feb 26, 2016 8:50 PM, "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > > *From: *"James Y Knight via llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> > *To: *"Sanjoy Das" <sanjoy at playingwithpointers.com> > *Cc: *"llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> > *Sent: *Thursday, February 25, 2016 1:41:43 PM > *Subject: *Re: [llvm-dev] Possible soundness issue with > available_externally (split from "RFC: Add guard intrinsics") > > While we're talking about this, I'd just mention again that the same issue > arises for *normal* functions too, when linked into a shared library: > int foo() { return 1; } > int bar() { return foo(); } > > Now, compare: > clang -fPIC -O1 -S -o - test.c > gcc -fPIC -O1 -S -o - test.c > > GCC will refuse to inline foo into bar, or use any information about foo > in compiling bar, because foo is exported in the dynamic symbol table, and > thus replaceable via symbol interposition. > > Clang assumes that you won't do that, or that you don't care what happens > if you do. It will happily inline. And, in absense of inlining (e.g. if foo > is too long to inline), clang will deduce function attributes about foo and > rely on those in bar -- despite that the call goes through the PLT and > could in fact be an entirely different unrelated implementation (or, for > that matter, a differently-optimized version of the same implementation). > > Is that *really* okay? > > I'm comfortable with saying that symbol interposition falls outside of the > model we have for the targeted system (at least by default), and thus, this > is okay. We also don't model the possibility of someone hex-editing the > binary ;) > > > I'm not really okay with it; the current behavior feels unprincipled. > > We have a visibility attribute which can be used to control this: On ELF > systems, "default" visibililty allows interposition (unlike on Darwin) -- > that is, it explicitly ALLOWS for replacing the symbol's definition. The > policy of "You can't replace the definition of the symbol, but it is > globally visible" is exactly what the "protected" visibility mode is for. > > If we want to say that you can't interpose by default on ELF targets, that > would be a choice. Then, we should make the default symbol visibility > "protected" instead of "default". But, continuing to generate calls through > the PLT -- which is only needed because the symbols might be replaced -- > while simultaneously making optimizations that are broken if they actually > ARE replaced, seems kinda bogus. > > This makes sense, and I think you understand my concern here: Most > programmers don't understand these issues, nor do they ever expect to use > dynamic interposition. They do expect, however, that the compiler has good > IPA and will use the information it is provided effectively. I'd be happy > to make the default visibility protected, allowing us to continue > optimizing well, and provide a principled behavior otherwise. Given, as you > point out, this is the default on Darwin, is there experience from Darwin > porting, or any other factors, that would indicate this would be a hardship? > > Thanks again, > Hal > > -- > Hal Finkel > Assistant Computational Scientist > Leadership Computing Facility > Argonne National Laboratory > > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org > http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev > > > > > -- > Hal Finkel > Lead, Compiler Technology and Programming Languages > Leadership Computing Facility > Argonne National Laboratory > > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org > http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20161129/f89e65da/attachment.html>
Hal Finkel via llvm-dev
2016-Nov-29 18:02 UTC
[llvm-dev] RFC: Add an "interposible" linkage type (and implement -fsemantic-interposition)
----- Original Message -----> From: "Eric Christopher" <echristo at gmail.com> > To: "Reid Kleckner" <rnk at google.com>, "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov> > Cc: "llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> > Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2016 11:34:56 AM > Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] RFC: Add an "interposible" linkage type (and > implement -fsemantic-interposition)> On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 9:15 AM Reid Kleckner via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org > wrote:> > I think that all makes sense. You're just adding the missing > > non-ODR > > conterpart of 'external' linkage. I could imagine having "external > > / > > external_odr" linkage for example. >> > That said, do you think we should take the opportunity to split out > > a > > bit for interposability so that we can kill off the *_odr linkage > > variants? Today's non-ODR weak functions would look more like this: > > > define weak interposable void @foo() { ret void } >> > We could probably preserve bitcode compatibility by continuing to > > use > > the old combined linkage encoding. This is useful because we want > > the old weak to decode as weak+interposable and the old weak_odr to > > decode as weak. >> > Some more prior discussion: https://reviews.llvm.org/D19995#423481 >> +1So we're all on the same page, our current encodings are: External: 0 WeakAny: 16 Appending: 2 Internal: 3 LinkOnceAny: 18 ExternalWeak: 7 Common: 8 Private: 9 WeakODR: 17 LinkOnceODR: 19 AvailableExternally: 12 And the new encodings would be: External: 0 External + Interposible: 20 Weak + Interposible: 16 Appending: 2 [interposible N/A] Internal: 3 [never interposible] LinkOnce + Interposible: 18 ExternalWeak: 7 [always interposible] Common: 8 [interposible N/A] Private: 9 [never interposible] Weak: 17 LinkOnce: 19 AvailableExternally: 12 [never interposible] With the mappings: [Old] -> [New] External -> External WeakAny -> Weak + Interposible LinkOnceAny -> LinkOnce + Interposible WeakODR -> Weak LinkOnceODR -> LinkOnce Is this what you had in mind? Thanks again, Hal> -eric> > On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 8:01 AM, Hal Finkel via llvm-dev < > > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org > wrote: >> > > Hi everyone, > > >> > > Clang/LLVM's support for ELF interposition is in a confusing > > > state, > > > and I propose making a few (hopefully simple) adjustments in > > > order > > > to bring our model into a self-consistent state. > > >> > > The problem: On ELF systems, global symbols can be interposed. > > > This > > > means, for example, that calls to global functions in some > > > (shared) > > > library defined in that same library might end up being > > > redirected > > > to an implementation in some other library (or in the main > > > executable). The most common reason for this is the use of > > > LD_PRELOAD, but there are plenty of other ways to trigger > > > interposition as well. As a result, it is technically > > > inconsistent > > > to inline any global function or do inter-procedural analysis on > > > them because the implementation might be replaced by code with > > > completely different behavior at runtme (or link time). Clang has > > > never supported this (i.e. we do treat these functions as being > > > eligible for inlining and perform IPA on them). GCC, on the other > > > hand, has traditionally respected the possibility of ELF > > > interposition and refrained from doing these things (at least > > > when > > > compiling with -fPIC). > > >> > > I believe that Clang/LLVM's current behavior is the most-useful > > > behavior and we should keep the current behavior (at least as a > > > default). I do understand, however, that there are valid use > > > cases > > > for ELF interposition and places where we should allow it (e.g. > > > when > > > compiling certain system libraries). GCC recently added a flag > > > -fsemantic-interposition/-fno-semantic-interposition, where using > > > -fno-semantic-interposition provides Clang/LLVM's behavior of > > > assuming that ELF interposition will not be used. > > >> > > It has been suggested that, to be self consistent, LLVM should > > > emit > > > global symbols with protected ELF visibility in cases where we've > > > assumed that ELF interposition won't happen. ELF protected > > > visibility does seem to have exactly that meaning: A protected > > > global symbol is externally visible but cannot be interposed. > > > Unfortunately, as I understand it, on some major platforms (e.g. > > > x86), protected-visibility symbols have a major flaw: > > > Non-uniqueness > > > of function pointers (i.e. the function pointer obtained to a > > > function outside of the defining library might be different from > > > the > > > pointer obtained within the defining library). As a result, > > > making > > > this change might be practically prohibited (even if it makes > > > sense > > > in theory). > > >> > > Proposal: > > >> > > 1. Add a new linkage type, interposible, which is like external > > > except that isInterposableLinkage will return true (thus > > > preventing > > > inlining, IPA, etc.). This is similar to weak linkage, in a > > > sense, > > > except that such symbols are never discarded and are not marked > > > as > > > weak for linking, etc. > > >> > > 2. Add -fsemantic-interposition/-fno-semantic-interposition to > > > Clang. > > > Default to -fno-semantic-interposition, but when > > > -fsemantic-interposition is used, use interposible linkage for > > > all > > > functions where external linkage might otherwise have been used. > > >> > > Thoughts? > > >> > > Some useful links: > > > > > > http://hubicka.blogspot.com/2015/04/GCC5-IPA-LTO-news.html (the > > > section on the -fno-semantic-interposition flag) > > > > > > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-05/msg01671.html > > >> > > On some issues with ELF protected-visibility symbols: > > > > > > http://www.macieira.org/blog/2012/01/sorry-state-of-dynamic-libraries-on-linux/ > > > > > > http://www.airs.com/blog/archives/307 > > > > > > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19520 > > >> > > Thanks again, > > > > > > Hal > > >> > > P.S. For some previous discussion on this, see below... > > >> > > > From: "Hal Finkel via llvm-dev" < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org > > > > > > > > > > > To: "James Y Knight" < jyknight at google.com > > > > > > > > > > > Cc: "llvm-dev" < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org > > > > > > > > > > > Sent: Monday, February 29, 2016 9:50:15 AM > > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] Possible soundness issue with > > > > available_externally (split from "RFC: Add guard intrinsics") > > > > > >> > > > > From: "James Y Knight" < jyknight at google.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To: "Hal Finkel" < hfinkel at anl.gov > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cc: "Sanjoy Das" < sanjoy at playingwithpointers.com >, > > > > > "llvm-dev" > > > > > < > > > > > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sent: Monday, February 29, 2016 9:31:24 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] Possible soundness issue with > > > > > available_externally (split from "RFC: Add guard intrinsics") > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > On Feb 26, 2016 8:50 PM, "Hal Finkel" < hfinkel at anl.gov > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > From: "James Y Knight via llvm-dev" < > > > > > > > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To: "Sanjoy Das" < sanjoy at playingwithpointers.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cc: "llvm-dev" < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2016 1:41:43 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] Possible soundness issue with > > > > > > > available_externally (split from "RFC: Add guard > > > > > > > intrinsics") > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > While we're talking about this, I'd just mention again > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > same > > > > > > > issue arises for *normal* functions too, when linked into > > > > > > > a > > > > > > > shared > > > > > > > library: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > int foo() { return 1; } > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > int bar() { return foo(); } > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Now, compare: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > clang -fPIC -O1 -S -o - test.c > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > gcc -fPIC -O1 -S -o - test.c > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > GCC will refuse to inline foo into bar, or use any > > > > > > > information > > > > > > > about > > > > > > > foo in compiling bar, because foo is exported in the > > > > > > > dynamic > > > > > > > symbol > > > > > > > table, and thus replaceable via symbol interposition. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Clang assumes that you won't do that, or that you don't > > > > > > > care > > > > > > > what > > > > > > > happens if you do. It will happily inline. And, in > > > > > > > absense > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > inlining (e.g. if foo is too long to inline), clang will > > > > > > > deduce > > > > > > > function attributes about foo and rely on those in bar -- > > > > > > > despite > > > > > > > that the call goes through the PLT and could in fact be > > > > > > > an > > > > > > > entirely > > > > > > > different unrelated implementation (or, for that matter, > > > > > > > a > > > > > > > differently-optimized version of the same > > > > > > > implementation). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Is that *really* okay? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > I'm comfortable with saying that symbol interposition falls > > > > > > outside > > > > > > of the model we have for the targeted system (at least by > > > > > > default), > > > > > > and thus, this is okay. We also don't model the possibility > > > > > > of > > > > > > someone hex-editing the binary ;) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm not really okay with it; the current behavior feels > > > > > unprincipled. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We have a visibility attribute which can be used to control > > > > > this: > > > > > On > > > > > ELF systems, "default" visibililty allows interposition > > > > > (unlike > > > > > on > > > > > Darwin) -- that is, it explicitly ALLOWS for replacing the > > > > > symbol's > > > > > definition. The policy of "You can't replace the definition > > > > > of > > > > > the > > > > > symbol, but it is globally visible" is exactly what the > > > > > "protected" > > > > > visibility mode is for. > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > If we want to say that you can't interpose by default on ELF > > > > > targets, > > > > > that would be a choice. Then, we should make the default > > > > > symbol > > > > > visibility "protected" instead of "default". But, continuing > > > > > to > > > > > generate calls through the PLT -- which is only needed > > > > > because > > > > > the > > > > > symbols might be replaced -- while simultaneously making > > > > > optimizations that are broken if they actually ARE replaced, > > > > > seems > > > > > kinda bogus. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This makes sense, and I think you understand my concern here: > > > > Most > > > > programmers don't understand these issues, nor do they ever > > > > expect > > > > to use dynamic interposition. They do expect, however, that the > > > > compiler has good IPA and will use the information it is > > > > provided > > > > effectively. I'd be happy to make the default visibility > > > > protected, > > > > allowing us to continue optimizing well, and provide a > > > > principled > > > > behavior otherwise. Given, as you point out, this is the > > > > default > > > > on > > > > Darwin, is there experience from Darwin porting, or any other > > > > factors, that would indicate this would be a hardship? > > > > > >> > > > Thanks again, > > > > > > > > > > Hal > > > > > >> > > > -- > > > > > >> > > > Hal Finkel > > > > > > > > > > Assistant Computational Scientist > > > > > > > > > > Leadership Computing Facility > > > > > > > > > > Argonne National Laboratory > > > > > >> > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > > > > > > LLVM Developers mailing list > > > > > > > > > > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org > > > > > > > > > > http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev > > > > > >> > > -- > > >> > > Hal Finkel > > > > > > Lead, Compiler Technology and Programming Languages > > > > > > Leadership Computing Facility > > > > > > Argonne National Laboratory > > >> > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > > LLVM Developers mailing list > > > > > > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org > > > > > > http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev > > >> > _______________________________________________ > > > LLVM Developers mailing list > > > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org > > > http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev >-- Hal Finkel Lead, Compiler Technology and Programming Languages Leadership Computing Facility Argonne National Laboratory -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20161129/3029d82a/attachment-0001.html>
Mehdi Amini via llvm-dev
2016-Nov-29 19:22 UTC
[llvm-dev] RFC: Add an "interposible" linkage type (and implement -fsemantic-interposition)
> On Nov 29, 2016, at 9:14 AM, Reid Kleckner via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > I think that all makes sense. You're just adding the missing non-ODR conterpart of 'external' linkage. I could imagine having "external / external_odr" linkage for example. > > That said, do you think we should take the opportunity to split out a bit for interposability so that we can kill off the *_odr linkage variants? Today's non-ODR weak functions would look more like this: > define weak interposable void @foo() { ret void } > > We could probably preserve bitcode compatibility by continuing to use the old combined linkage encoding. This is useful because we want the old weak to decode as weak+interposable and the old weak_odr to decode as weak. > > Some more prior discussion: https://reviews.llvm.org/D19995#423481 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D19995#423481>See also the open PR: https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=23501 — Mehdi> > On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 8:01 AM, Hal Finkel via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote: > Hi everyone, > > Clang/LLVM's support for ELF interposition is in a confusing state, and I propose making a few (hopefully simple) adjustments in order to bring our model into a self-consistent state. > > The problem: On ELF systems, global symbols can be interposed. This means, for example, that calls to global functions in some (shared) library defined in that same library might end up being redirected to an implementation in some other library (or in the main executable). The most common reason for this is the use of LD_PRELOAD, but there are plenty of other ways to trigger interposition as well. As a result, it is technically inconsistent to inline any global function or do inter-procedural analysis on them because the implementation might be replaced by code with completely different behavior at runtme (or link time). Clang has never supported this (i.e. we do treat these functions as being eligible for inlining and perform IPA on them). GCC, on the other hand, has traditionally respected the possibility of ELF interposition and refrained from doing these things (at least when compiling with -fPIC). > > I believe that Clang/LLVM's current behavior is the most-useful behavior and we should keep the current behavior (at least as a default). I do understand, however, that there are valid use cases for ELF interposition and places where we should allow it (e.g. when compiling certain system libraries). GCC recently added a flag -fsemantic-interposition/-fno-semantic-interposition, where using -fno-semantic-interposition provides Clang/LLVM's behavior of assuming that ELF interposition will not be used. > > It has been suggested that, to be self consistent, LLVM should emit global symbols with protected ELF visibility in cases where we've assumed that ELF interposition won't happen. ELF protected visibility does seem to have exactly that meaning: A protected global symbol is externally visible but cannot be interposed. Unfortunately, as I understand it, on some major platforms (e.g. x86), protected-visibility symbols have a major flaw: Non-uniqueness of function pointers (i.e. the function pointer obtained to a function outside of the defining library might be different from the pointer obtained within the defining library). As a result, making this change might be practically prohibited (even if it makes sense in theory). > > Proposal: > > 1. Add a new linkage type, interposible, which is like external except that isInterposableLinkage will return true (thus preventing inlining, IPA, etc.). This is similar to weak linkage, in a sense, except that such symbols are never discarded and are not marked as weak for linking, etc. > > 2. Add -fsemantic-interposition/-fno-semantic-interposition to Clang. Default to -fno-semantic-interposition, but when -fsemantic-interposition is used, use interposible linkage for all functions where external linkage might otherwise have been used. > > Thoughts? > > Some useful links: > http://hubicka.blogspot.com/2015/04/GCC5-IPA-LTO-news.html <http://hubicka.blogspot.com/2015/04/GCC5-IPA-LTO-news.html> (the section on the -fno-semantic-interposition flag) > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-05/msg01671.html <https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-05/msg01671.html> > > On some issues with ELF protected-visibility symbols: > http://www.macieira.org/blog/2012/01/sorry-state-of-dynamic-libraries-on-linux/ <http://www.macieira.org/blog/2012/01/sorry-state-of-dynamic-libraries-on-linux/> > http://www.airs.com/blog/archives/307 <http://www.airs.com/blog/archives/307> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19520 <https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19520> > > Thanks again, > Hal > > P.S. For some previous discussion on this, see below... > > From: "Hal Finkel via llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> > To: "James Y Knight" <jyknight at google.com <mailto:jyknight at google.com>> > Cc: "llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> > Sent: Monday, February 29, 2016 9:50:15 AM > Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] Possible soundness issue with available_externally (split from "RFC: Add guard intrinsics") > > > From: "James Y Knight" <jyknight at google.com <mailto:jyknight at google.com>> > To: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov <mailto:hfinkel at anl.gov>> > Cc: "Sanjoy Das" <sanjoy at playingwithpointers.com <mailto:sanjoy at playingwithpointers.com>>, "llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> > Sent: Monday, February 29, 2016 9:31:24 AM > Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] Possible soundness issue with available_externally (split from "RFC: Add guard intrinsics") > > On Feb 26, 2016 8:50 PM, "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov <mailto:hfinkel at anl.gov>> wrote: > > From: "James Y Knight via llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> > To: "Sanjoy Das" <sanjoy at playingwithpointers.com <mailto:sanjoy at playingwithpointers.com>> > Cc: "llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> > Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2016 1:41:43 PM > Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] Possible soundness issue with available_externally (split from "RFC: Add guard intrinsics") > > While we're talking about this, I'd just mention again that the same issue arises for *normal* functions too, when linked into a shared library: > int foo() { return 1; } > int bar() { return foo(); } > > Now, compare: > clang -fPIC -O1 -S -o - test.c > gcc -fPIC -O1 -S -o - test.c > > GCC will refuse to inline foo into bar, or use any information about foo in compiling bar, because foo is exported in the dynamic symbol table, and thus replaceable via symbol interposition. > > Clang assumes that you won't do that, or that you don't care what happens if you do. It will happily inline. And, in absense of inlining (e.g. if foo is too long to inline), clang will deduce function attributes about foo and rely on those in bar -- despite that the call goes through the PLT and could in fact be an entirely different unrelated implementation (or, for that matter, a differently-optimized version of the same implementation). > > Is that *really* okay? > > I'm comfortable with saying that symbol interposition falls outside of the model we have for the targeted system (at least by default), and thus, this is okay. We also don't model the possibility of someone hex-editing the binary ;) > > I'm not really okay with it; the current behavior feels unprincipled. > > We have a visibility attribute which can be used to control this: On ELF systems, "default" visibililty allows interposition (unlike on Darwin) -- that is, it explicitly ALLOWS for replacing the symbol's definition. The policy of "You can't replace the definition of the symbol, but it is globally visible" is exactly what the "protected" visibility mode is for. > > If we want to say that you can't interpose by default on ELF targets, that would be a choice. Then, we should make the default symbol visibility "protected" instead of "default". But, continuing to generate calls through the PLT -- which is only needed because the symbols might be replaced -- while simultaneously making optimizations that are broken if they actually ARE replaced, seems kinda bogus. > > This makes sense, and I think you understand my concern here: Most programmers don't understand these issues, nor do they ever expect to use dynamic interposition. They do expect, however, that the compiler has good IPA and will use the information it is provided effectively. I'd be happy to make the default visibility protected, allowing us to continue optimizing well, and provide a principled behavior otherwise. Given, as you point out, this is the default on Darwin, is there experience from Darwin porting, or any other factors, that would indicate this would be a hardship? > > Thanks again, > Hal > > -- > Hal Finkel > Assistant Computational Scientist > Leadership Computing Facility > Argonne National Laboratory > > _______________________________________________ > 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 <http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev> > > > > -- > Hal Finkel > Lead, Compiler Technology and Programming Languages > Leadership Computing Facility > Argonne National Laboratory > > _______________________________________________ > 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 <http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev> > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20161129/4c013852/attachment.html>
Mehdi Amini via llvm-dev
2016-Nov-29 20:08 UTC
[llvm-dev] RFC: Add an "interposible" linkage type (and implement -fsemantic-interposition)
> On Nov 29, 2016, at 11:22 AM, Mehdi Amini via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> >> On Nov 29, 2016, at 9:14 AM, Reid Kleckner via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote: >> >> I think that all makes sense. You're just adding the missing non-ODR conterpart of 'external' linkage. I could imagine having "external / external_odr" linkage for example. >> >> That said, do you think we should take the opportunity to split out a bit for interposability so that we can kill off the *_odr linkage variants? Today's non-ODR weak functions would look more like this: >> define weak interposable void @foo() { ret void } >> >> We could probably preserve bitcode compatibility by continuing to use the old combined linkage encoding. This is useful because we want the old weak to decode as weak+interposable and the old weak_odr to decode as weak. >> >> Some more prior discussion: https://reviews.llvm.org/D19995#423481 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D19995#423481> > See also the open PR: https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=23501 <https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=23501>And another prior discussion and patch by Rafael (CC): https://reviews.llvm.org/D20217 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D20217> — Mehdi> > — > Mehdi > >> >> On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 8:01 AM, Hal Finkel via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote: >> Hi everyone, >> >> Clang/LLVM's support for ELF interposition is in a confusing state, and I propose making a few (hopefully simple) adjustments in order to bring our model into a self-consistent state. >> >> The problem: On ELF systems, global symbols can be interposed. This means, for example, that calls to global functions in some (shared) library defined in that same library might end up being redirected to an implementation in some other library (or in the main executable). The most common reason for this is the use of LD_PRELOAD, but there are plenty of other ways to trigger interposition as well. As a result, it is technically inconsistent to inline any global function or do inter-procedural analysis on them because the implementation might be replaced by code with completely different behavior at runtme (or link time). Clang has never supported this (i.e. we do treat these functions as being eligible for inlining and perform IPA on them). GCC, on the other hand, has traditionally respected the possibility of ELF interposition and refrained from doing these things (at least when compiling with -fPIC). >> >> I believe that Clang/LLVM's current behavior is the most-useful behavior and we should keep the current behavior (at least as a default). I do understand, however, that there are valid use cases for ELF interposition and places where we should allow it (e.g. when compiling certain system libraries). GCC recently added a flag -fsemantic-interposition/-fno-semantic-interposition, where using -fno-semantic-interposition provides Clang/LLVM's behavior of assuming that ELF interposition will not be used. >> >> It has been suggested that, to be self consistent, LLVM should emit global symbols with protected ELF visibility in cases where we've assumed that ELF interposition won't happen. ELF protected visibility does seem to have exactly that meaning: A protected global symbol is externally visible but cannot be interposed. Unfortunately, as I understand it, on some major platforms (e.g. x86), protected-visibility symbols have a major flaw: Non-uniqueness of function pointers (i.e. the function pointer obtained to a function outside of the defining library might be different from the pointer obtained within the defining library). As a result, making this change might be practically prohibited (even if it makes sense in theory). >> >> Proposal: >> >> 1. Add a new linkage type, interposible, which is like external except that isInterposableLinkage will return true (thus preventing inlining, IPA, etc.). This is similar to weak linkage, in a sense, except that such symbols are never discarded and are not marked as weak for linking, etc. >> >> 2. Add -fsemantic-interposition/-fno-semantic-interposition to Clang. Default to -fno-semantic-interposition, but when -fsemantic-interposition is used, use interposible linkage for all functions where external linkage might otherwise have been used. >> >> Thoughts? >> >> Some useful links: >> http://hubicka.blogspot.com/2015/04/GCC5-IPA-LTO-news.html <http://hubicka.blogspot.com/2015/04/GCC5-IPA-LTO-news.html> (the section on the -fno-semantic-interposition flag) >> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-05/msg01671.html <https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-05/msg01671.html> >> >> On some issues with ELF protected-visibility symbols: >> http://www.macieira.org/blog/2012/01/sorry-state-of-dynamic-libraries-on-linux/ <http://www.macieira.org/blog/2012/01/sorry-state-of-dynamic-libraries-on-linux/> >> http://www.airs.com/blog/archives/307 <http://www.airs.com/blog/archives/307> >> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19520 <https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19520> >> >> Thanks again, >> Hal >> >> P.S. For some previous discussion on this, see below... >> >> From: "Hal Finkel via llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> >> To: "James Y Knight" <jyknight at google.com <mailto:jyknight at google.com>> >> Cc: "llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> >> Sent: Monday, February 29, 2016 9:50:15 AM >> Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] Possible soundness issue with available_externally (split from "RFC: Add guard intrinsics") >> >> >> From: "James Y Knight" <jyknight at google.com <mailto:jyknight at google.com>> >> To: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov <mailto:hfinkel at anl.gov>> >> Cc: "Sanjoy Das" <sanjoy at playingwithpointers.com <mailto:sanjoy at playingwithpointers.com>>, "llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> >> Sent: Monday, February 29, 2016 9:31:24 AM >> Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] Possible soundness issue with available_externally (split from "RFC: Add guard intrinsics") >> >> On Feb 26, 2016 8:50 PM, "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov <mailto:hfinkel at anl.gov>> wrote: >> >> From: "James Y Knight via llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> >> To: "Sanjoy Das" <sanjoy at playingwithpointers.com <mailto:sanjoy at playingwithpointers.com>> >> Cc: "llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> >> Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2016 1:41:43 PM >> Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] Possible soundness issue with available_externally (split from "RFC: Add guard intrinsics") >> >> While we're talking about this, I'd just mention again that the same issue arises for *normal* functions too, when linked into a shared library: >> int foo() { return 1; } >> int bar() { return foo(); } >> >> Now, compare: >> clang -fPIC -O1 -S -o - test.c >> gcc -fPIC -O1 -S -o - test.c >> >> GCC will refuse to inline foo into bar, or use any information about foo in compiling bar, because foo is exported in the dynamic symbol table, and thus replaceable via symbol interposition. >> >> Clang assumes that you won't do that, or that you don't care what happens if you do. It will happily inline. And, in absense of inlining (e.g. if foo is too long to inline), clang will deduce function attributes about foo and rely on those in bar -- despite that the call goes through the PLT and could in fact be an entirely different unrelated implementation (or, for that matter, a differently-optimized version of the same implementation). >> >> Is that *really* okay? >> >> I'm comfortable with saying that symbol interposition falls outside of the model we have for the targeted system (at least by default), and thus, this is okay. We also don't model the possibility of someone hex-editing the binary ;) >> >> I'm not really okay with it; the current behavior feels unprincipled. >> >> We have a visibility attribute which can be used to control this: On ELF systems, "default" visibililty allows interposition (unlike on Darwin) -- that is, it explicitly ALLOWS for replacing the symbol's definition. The policy of "You can't replace the definition of the symbol, but it is globally visible" is exactly what the "protected" visibility mode is for. >> >> If we want to say that you can't interpose by default on ELF targets, that would be a choice. Then, we should make the default symbol visibility "protected" instead of "default". But, continuing to generate calls through the PLT -- which is only needed because the symbols might be replaced -- while simultaneously making optimizations that are broken if they actually ARE replaced, seems kinda bogus. >> >> This makes sense, and I think you understand my concern here: Most programmers don't understand these issues, nor do they ever expect to use dynamic interposition. They do expect, however, that the compiler has good IPA and will use the information it is provided effectively. I'd be happy to make the default visibility protected, allowing us to continue optimizing well, and provide a principled behavior otherwise. Given, as you point out, this is the default on Darwin, is there experience from Darwin porting, or any other factors, that would indicate this would be a hardship? >> >> Thanks again, >> Hal >> >> -- >> Hal Finkel >> Assistant Computational Scientist >> Leadership Computing Facility >> Argonne National Laboratory >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 <http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev> >> >> >> >> -- >> Hal Finkel >> Lead, Compiler Technology and Programming Languages >> Leadership Computing Facility >> Argonne National Laboratory >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 <http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > > _______________________________________________ > 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 <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/20161129/2f44051f/attachment.html>