[llvm-dev] How to contribute on LLVM project as beginner

Oliver Stannard via llvm-dev
2019-07-24T09:52:18Z

Your script looks OK, though you won't want to use the
-opt-bisect-limitoption until you've found a case where code-generation
changes. Instead,
that's a tool which you could use to narrow down the pass inside LLVM which
is causing the change.

The problem is that your input code is far too simple to trigger any
interesting optimisations. I'd suggest starting with either some code from
the LLVM test suite (https://github.com/llvm/llvm-test-suite), or some code
generated by csmith (https://embed.cs.utah.edu/csmith/). The former has the
advantage of being (mostly) real code people actually write, and the latter
can generate a large amount of complex code without any external
dependencies (so it's easy to build).

I'd also suggest looking into creduce (https://embed.cs.utah.edu/creduce/),
which will allow you to quickly reduce a large input file which triggers a
bug down to a much smaller one.

Oliver

On Wed, 24 Jul 2019 at 01:18, Chris Ye via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org>
wrote:

> Hi Paul,
> Thanks for your useful guidelines, may I confirm with you the steps list
> below is correct or not?
>
> 1. find sample code (.c)
> 2. using different options(pass) to compile sample code by clang
> with/without "-g"
> 3. objdump the output.o and outout-g.o
> 4. compare two file of text section check if there has any difference.
> 5. if find difference, great, file bug and fix it.
>
> Please correct me if I miss something.
>
> Follow the steps,
> * I used sample code (foo.c)
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> int foo() { return 42; }
> int bar() { return foo(); }
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> * created a compare tool (compare.sh)
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> #!/bin/bash
>
> options=$1
> file=$2
>
> clang -c -ffunction-sections -fexceptions -mllvm -opt-bisect-limit=200 $1
> $file -o output.o
> clang -c -ffunction-sections -fexceptions -mllvm -opt-bisect-limit=200 $1
> $file -o output-g.o
>
> objdump -d output.o > output.objdump
> objdump -d output-g.o > output-g.objdump
>
> diff -uNar output.objdump output-g.objdump
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> * Then run the compassion tests
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> $ ./compare.sh -O0 foo.c
> $ ./compare.sh -O1 foo.c
> $ ./compare.sh -O2 foo.c
> $ ./compare.sh -O3 foo.c
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> The diff result is the same. How can I find the bug? Do the sample code I
> used too simple? Or need I add other more pass options? Please help to
> correct my steps if I missed something. Thanks you very much.
>
> Best Regards,
> Chris Ye
>
>
> At 2019-07-17 01:40:43, paul.robinson at sony.com wrote:
>
> Hi Chris,
>
>
>
> "Debug info should have no effect on codegen" would be a fine
project for
> you; nobody is working on it that I know of.  Another way to contribute
> would be to go to our Bugzilla (bugs.llvm.org) and search for open bugs
> with the "beginner" keyword.
>
>
>
> Regarding the "debug info has no effect on codegen" project,
unfortunately
> I am having IT issues that keep me from providing much in the way of
> specific suggestions, so what follows is fairly generic.
>
> In principle, you compile some piece of code with and without –g, and see
> if there is any difference in the generated instructions. My experience is
> that you want to compile to a .o file, and then use a disassembler to dump
> the text sections. This will give you a cleaner diff than using –S to
> generate assembler files.
>
> I also recommend compiling with `-ffunction-sections` and probably
> `-fexceptions`.  The former will put each compiled function into its own
> object-file section, so that differences in one function won't affect
the
> disassembly of a later function.  The latter option should work around one
> fairly intractable known difference: -g will cause the compiler to emit
> directives to produce call-frame information, and these tend to act as
> instruction-scheduling barriers. Using –fexceptions (I am 95% sure that is
> the correct option) should cause the non-dash-g compilation to use the same
> directives, and avoid that known difference.
>
> You can repeat this experiment with different optimization levels, as
> differences are far more likely to show up with optimization.
>
>
>
> Once you find a difference, you can begin experimenting with ways to
> identify specific compiler passes that are contributing to the difference.
> A very useful tool here is the backend option `-opt-bisect-limit=N` where N
> is the number of passes to execute. Because it is a backend option, you
> would use it this way:
>
>     clang –c –O2 –mllvm –opt-bisect-limit=100 foo.c –o foo.o
>
>     clang –c –O2 –mllvm –opt-bisect-limit=100 foo.c –g –o foo-g.o
>
> Then disassemble and diff as usual.  After you have identified a
> problematic pass, you can try your hand at fixing it yourself, or you can
> file a bug (with a reduced reproducer if at all possible) and move on to
> another sample.
>
>
>
> Of course you will need some sample source code to run experiments on.
> This can be anything convenient. You could try it on any personal projects
> you have, or you could find a random code generator, or whatever you like.
> Some people have recommended LLVM's own 'test-suite' project
although I
> have not looked at it in any detail.
>
>
>
> Good luck, and feel free to post additional questions on llvm-dev if you
> run into any problems.
>
> --paulr
>
>
>
> *From:* llvm-dev [mailto:llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org] *On Behalf Of
*Chris
> Ye via llvm-dev
> *Sent:* Sunday, July 14, 2019 11:59 PM
> *To:* llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> *Subject:* [llvm-dev] How to contribute on LLVM project as beginner
>
>
>
> Hi LLVM project Leaders,
>
> I am a software engineer working on several other open source
> projects, recently I am very interested in LLVM technology, espically on
> backend part. I have taken two months studying the documents from llvm.org
> in my spare time. As a beginner, I would like to contribute some code to
> LLVM project, from the "Google Summer of Code 2019", I found one
project
> "Debug Info should have no effect on codegen" that I may able to
> contribute, not sure if the project has already been completed? If there
> are still tasks exist, how can I join in? Or is that any other project I
> can work on? I would spend 10~20 hours on LLVM development every week as I
> want to gather experience to find a job as LLVM developer in the
> furture.  I am a quickly learning, I would be very appricate if you could
> help me and give me some guides, so that I would run faster on my way to
> LLVM field. Many thanks.
>
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> LLVM
>
> Debug Info should have no effect on codegen
>
> *Description of the project:* Adding Debug Info (compiling with `clang
> -g`) shouldn't change the generated code at all. Unfortunately we have
> bugs. These are usually not too hard to fix and a good way to discover new
> part of the codebase! We suggest building object files both ways and
> disassembling the text sections, which will give cleaner diffs than
> comparing .s files.
>
> *Expected results:* Reduced test cases, bug reports with analysis (e.g.,
> which pass is responsible), possibly patches.
>
> *Confirmed Mentor:* Paul Robinson
>
> *Desirable skills:* Intermediate knowledge of C++, some familiarity with
> x86 or ARM instruction set.
>
>
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Chris Ye
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> https://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/20190724/9938b243/attachment.html>