llvm dev - Nov 2017 - [RFC] Setting the current debug loc when the insertion point changes

> On Nov 6, 2017, at 2:58 PM, Adrian Prantl <aprantl at apple.com>
wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> On Nov 6, 2017, at 2:50 PM, Vedant Kumar <vsk at apple.com>
wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> On Nov 6, 2017, at 2:32 PM, Adrian Prantl <aprantl at
apple.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On Nov 6, 2017, at 2:19 PM, Vedant Kumar <vsk at
apple.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Hi everybody,
>>>> 
>>>> I'm investigating some correctness issues with debug line
table information in optimized code. I've noticed something problematic in
IRBuilder. Setting the insertion point of an IRBuilder sets the builder’s
current debug loc to the one attached to the insertion point. IMO this isn't
always a correct or convenient thing to do, and it shouldn't be the default
behavior.
>>>> 
>>>> # Correctness
>>>> 
>>>> The IRBuilder shouldn't assume that the debug loc at its
insertion point applies to any instructions it emits. It doesn't have enough
information to make that connection. This assumption leads to bugs like
llvm.org/PR25630. I.e it creates situations in which we silently push around
incorrect DILocations without realizing it, because the debug locs in the IR
look nice and contiguous.
>>> 
>>> I agree with your analysis.
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> To fix the issue, clients of IRBuilder should be required to
either:
>>>> 
>>>> 1. Explicitly set the correct debug location before inserting
instructions, or
>>>> 2. Opt-in to the current behavior of propagating the debug loc
from the insertion point.
>>>> 
>>>> # Convenience
>>>> 
>>>> The current behavior of IRBuilder can be convenient when
it's correct. But it can be *really* inconvenient when it's incorrect.
>>>> 
>>>> If a client sets an IRBuilder's debug loc correctly and
makes a call that changes the builder's insertion point, all generated
instructions will pick up a bogus debug loc from the IP. E.g this is what
happens with SCEVExpander::expandCodeFor(). There's no way to fix this bug
without changing IRBuilder's behavior.
>>>> 
>>>> # Solutions
>>>> 
>>>> 1. Add a method called SetInsertPointAndDebugLoc() which
behaves identically to the current SetInsertPoint(). Change SetInsertPoint() so
that it doesn't change the current debug loc.
>>>> 2. Add a boolean argument to SetInsertPoint() called
UpdateDbgLoc which defaults to false. Only change the current debug loc if
UpdateDbgLoc is true.
>>>> 
>>>> I have a mild preference for idea #1 because it's easier to
read, IMO.
>>>> 
>>>> Whichever solution we pick, my plan is to first migrate all
in-tree users of SetInsertPoint() to the explicit API, and to then gradually fix
passes which rely on the current incorrect behavior.
>>> 
>>> Is the behavior of inheriting the debug location of the insertion
point ever what we want? I guess I can see how it can be useful when expanding
an existing instruction into a sequence, but I wonder if any clients actually
correctly use it like that today. If there aren't many uses, we could also
add a (DILocation *) argument to SetInsertPoint to force every client to think
about how to properly set the location in their use-case.
>> 
>> There's at least one correct use of the current SetInsertPoint()
API in speculateSelectInstLoads() :). As you predicted, it expands an existing
instruction into a sequence.
>> 
>> I'm not sure how many correct uses of the API we have. There are
over 300 uses in just {llvm,clang}/lib. I think that prevents us from adding a
mandatory argument to SetInsertPoint(): we wouldn't be able to promptly fix
each use of the API.
> 
> I thought that your proposal was to add SetInsertPointAndDebugLoc() *and*
convert all existing users over at the same time, and then audit them for
correctness one-by-one (and potentially move them over to the new
SetInsertPoint()).
Yes.

> I don't see how this is cheaper than adding an extra parameter to
SetInsertPoint(). The auditing needs to be done either way. Am I
misunderstanding your proposal?
Sorry, I actually think I misunderstood your suggestion.

Did you mean that we should add an extra parameter to SetInsertPoint(), convert
all in-tree users so they call SetInsertPoint(IP, IP->getDebugLoc()), and
then audit all uses of the API? If so, I think that's workable, but it
presents a difficult migration problem. There's an overload of
SetInsertPoint which accepts a BasicBlock::iterator, so we'd have to detect
that and write this in-line:

  IRB.SetInsertPoint(BB, IP, (IP != BB->end()) ? IP->getDebugLoc() :
IBR.getCurrentDebugLocation())

I do like that this approach forces clients of IRBuilder to be intentional about
setting debug locs, but it looks like it could get messy.

Wdyt of adopting parts of both solutions? I.e, we'd have the following
methods:

// Transition API
- SetInsertPointAndDebugLoc(BasicBlock *)
- SetInsertPointAndDebugLoc(Instruction *)
- SetInsertPointAndDebugLoc(BasicBlock *, BasicBlock::iterator)

// Future API
- SetInsertPoint(BasicBlock *, const DebugLoc &)
- SetInsertPoint(Instruction *, const DebugLoc &)
- SetInsertPoint(BasicBlock *, BasicBlock::iterator, const DebugLoc &)

We'd make this work by renaming SetInsertPoint to SetInsertPointAndDebugLoc
and marking it as deprecated. This would make the transition easy (run sed in a
loop), we'd get the future API we want, and it becomes easy to find
unaudited API calls.

vedant

> 
> -- adrian
> 
>> 
>> OTOH, if we added a method like SetInsertPointAndDebugLoc(), we could
incrementally eliminate as many uses of that method as possible.
>> 
>> 
>>> I also like the idea of renaming the method to make it really
obvious what happens here. Could we *gasp* even fix the capitalization?
>> 
>> Sure :).
>> 
>> 
>>> We should also think about how to map this to the C API.
>> 
>> Wdyt of exposing SetInsertPointAndDebugLoc() via the C API, with a note
explaining that it will eventually be deprecated?
>> 
>> vedant
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> -- adrian
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> I'd appreciate your thoughts on this!
>>>> 
>>>> thanks,
>>>> vedant
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20171106/1b38eb01/attachment.html>

There's also the opposite problem of the IRBuilder sometimes not being 
able to find a debug location at the insertion point when it is required 
to add one (e.g. when inserting a CallInst into a function that has 
debug info)... another argument for making it explicit!

On 11/06/2017 05:32 PM, Vedant Kumar via llvm-dev wrote:
> Wdyt of adopting parts of both solutions? I.e, we'd have the following 
> methods:
>
> // Transition API
> - SetInsertPointAndDebugLoc(BasicBlock *)
> - SetInsertPointAndDebugLoc(Instruction *)
> - SetInsertPointAndDebugLoc(BasicBlock *, BasicBlock::iterator)
>
> // Future API
> - SetInsertPoint(BasicBlock *, const DebugLoc &)
> - SetInsertPoint(Instruction *, const DebugLoc &)
> - SetInsertPoint(BasicBlock *, BasicBlock::iterator, const DebugLoc &)
+1 to this solution. We shouldn't silently change the behavior of the 
existing SetInsertPoint API.

Thanks,
Tobias

-- 
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project.

> On Nov 8, 2017, at 9:29 AM, Tobias Edler von Koch <tobias at
codeaurora.org> wrote:
> 
> There's also the opposite problem of the IRBuilder sometimes not being
able to find a debug location at the insertion point when it is required to add
one (e.g. when inserting a CallInst into a function that has debug info)...
another argument for making it explicit!
Right. It's not too onerous to type "setInsertPoint(...,
DebugLoc())" if the location really is unknown, and it's a lot more
explicit.

> On 11/06/2017 05:32 PM, Vedant Kumar via llvm-dev wrote:
>> Wdyt of adopting parts of both solutions? I.e, we'd have the
following methods:
>> 
>> // Transition API
>> - SetInsertPointAndDebugLoc(BasicBlock *)
>> - SetInsertPointAndDebugLoc(Instruction *)
>> - SetInsertPointAndDebugLoc(BasicBlock *, BasicBlock::iterator)
>> 
>> // Future API
>> - SetInsertPoint(BasicBlock *, const DebugLoc &)
>> - SetInsertPoint(Instruction *, const DebugLoc &)
>> - SetInsertPoint(BasicBlock *, BasicBlock::iterator, const DebugLoc
&)
> 
> +1 to this solution. We shouldn't silently change the behavior of the
existing SetInsertPoint API.
Good to hear. I think it would be even simpler if we skip renaming the existing
users, and just added the future APIs. I'll send out a patch.

thanks,
vedant
> 
> Thanks,
> Tobias
> 
> -- 
> Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
> a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project.
>