thr3ads.net - llvm dev - [llvm-dev] Revisiting/refining the definition of optnone with interprocedural transformations [Apr 2021]

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

Johannes Doerfert via llvm-dev

2021-Apr-19 03:28 UTC

[llvm-dev] Revisiting/refining the definition of optnone with interprocedural transformations

I'm very much in favor of `noipa`. It comes up every few months
and it would be widely useful. I'd expose it via Clang and -O0 could
set it as well (for the LTO case).

When it comes to inexact definitions, optnone functions, and existing 
attributes,
I'd be in favor of 1) always allowing the use of existing attributes,
and 2) not deriving new ones for an inexact or optnone definition.

This is how the Attributor determines if it a function level attribute could
be derived or if we should only stick with the existing information:

     /// Determine whether the function \p F is IPO amendable
     ///
     /// If a function is exactly defined or it has alwaysinline attribute
     /// and is viable to be inlined, we say it is IPO amendable
     bool isFunctionIPOAmendable(const Function &F) {
       return F.hasExactDefinition() || 
InfoCache.InlineableFunctions.count(&F);
     }

So, if the above check doesn't hold we will not add new attributes but 
we will
still use existing ones. This seems to me the right way to allow 
users/frontends
to provide information selectively.

That said, right now the Attributor will not propagate any information 
from an
optnone function or derive new information. Nevertheless, I'd be in 
favor to allow
existing information to be used for IPO.

~ Johannes


On 4/18/21 8:40 PM, David Blaikie via llvm-dev wrote:> Prototyping the idea of "isDefinitionExact" returning false for
optnone
> (whether or not we split it out into noipo or not) I've tripped over
> something it seems I created 5 years ago:
>
> I added some IPC support for optnone to GlobalsModRef:
>
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/c662b501508200076e581beb9345a7631173a1d8#diff-55664e96a7ce3533b46f12c6906acecb2bd9a599e2b79c97506af4b1b4873fa1
> - so it wouldn't conclude properties of an optnone function.
>
> But I then made a follow-up commit (without a lot of context as to why,
> unfortunately :/ ) that allowed GlobasModRef to use existing attributes on
> an optnone function:
>
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/7a9b788830da0a426fb0ff0a4cec6d592bb026e9#diff-55664e96a7ce3533b46f12c6906acecb2bd9a599e2b79c97506af4b1b4873fa1
>
> But it seems making the function definition inexact, breaks the unit
> testing added in the latter commit. I suppose then it's an open
question
> whether existing attributes on an inexact definition should be used at all?
> (I don't know what motivated me to support them for optnone)
>
> Oh, and here's a change from Chandler around the same time similarly
> blocking some ipo for optnone:
>
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/0fb998110abcf3d67495d12f854a1576b182d811#diff-cc618a9485181a9246c4e0367dc9f1a19d3cb6811d1e488713f53a753d3da60c
> - in this case preventing FunctionAttrs from deriving the attributes for an
> optnone function. That functionality looks like it can be subsumed by the
> inexact approach - applying inexact to optnone and removing the change in
> Chandler's patch still passes the tests. (hmm, tested - not quite, but
more
> work to do there)
>
> On Sun, Apr 18, 2021 at 10:06 AM David Blaikie <dblaikie at
gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Apr 18, 2021 at 9:43 AM Roman Lebedev <lebedev.ri at
gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> There's 'noipa' attribute in GCC, currently it is not
supported by clang.
>>> Theoretically, how would one implement it?
>>>
>> If we wanted to do this really robustly, I guess we might have to
>> introduce some sort of "here's the usual way to check if this
is a
>> definition/get the body of the function" (which for noipa it says
"there is
>> no body/don't look here") and "no, really, I need the
definition" (for
>> actual code generation).
>>
>> Though I'm not advocating for that - I'm OK with a more
ad-hoc/best-effort
>> implementation targeting the -O0/debugging assistant
>> __attribute__((optnone)) kind of use case - happy to fix cases as they
come
>> up to improve the user experience for these situations.
>>
>> Maybe we could get away with generalizing this by having an optnone (or
>> noipa) function appear "interposable" even though it
doesn't have a real
>> interposable linkage? That should hinder/disable any IPA.
>>
>> Hmm, looks like GlobalValue::isDefinitionExact would be best to return
>> false in this case (whatever we end up naming it) /maybe/
>> mayBeDerefined should return false too.
>>
>> Yeah, I guess if we can implement such a robust generalization, then
it'd
>> probably be OK/easy enough to implement both noipa and optnone implies
>> noipa the same as it implies noinline (well, I guess noipa would
subsume
>> the noinline implication - if the function isn't exact, the inliner
won't
>> inline it so there wouldn't be any need for the explicit noinline)
>>
>>
>>> With your proposal, clang `noipa` attribute could be lowered
>>> to `optnone` on the whole function, To me that seems like
>>> too much of a hammer, should that be the path forward.
>>>
>> I agree that lowering noipa to optnone would be a very aggressive form
of
>> noipa - likely if we want to support noipa it would be to support it
>> separately and maybe either lower -O0 (& maybe
__attribute__((optnone))) to
>> both optnone+noipa+noinline (since optnone already implies noinline) or
>> make optnone imply ipa/be a superset of it implicitly (if we do have
noipa
>> it's probably best to have "optnone requires noipa" the
same way "optnone
>> requires noinline" rather than an implicit superset sort of
thing).
>>
>> I think that'd certainly be appropriate for -O0, and I'd argue
it'd be
>> appropriate for __attribute__((optnone)) because I think it'd be
what
>> people expect/is consistent with the motivation for the attribute (for
>> debuggability - so you wouldn't want a caller to not fill in
>> parameters/pass in garbage because it knows the implementation
doesn't
>> matter, or not use the result because it knows what the result should
be).
>>
>>
>>> Would it not be best to not conflate the two,
>>> and just introduce the `noipa` attribute?
>>>
>> I think we'd still want to conflate them for user-facing
functionality,
>> even if they were separable at the IR level.
>>
>> - Dave
>>
>>
>>> Roman
>>>
>>> On Sun, Apr 18, 2021 at 7:37 PM David Blaikie <dblaikie at
gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> While trying to reproduce some debug info thing (I don't
have the exact
>>> example at the moment - but I think it was more aggressive than the
example
>>> I have now, but something like this:
>>>> __attribute__((optnone)) int f1() {
>>>>    return 3;
>>>> }
>>>> int main() {
>>>>    return f1();
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> (actually I think in my case I had a variable to hold the
return value
>>> from f1, with the intent that this variable's location
couldn't use a
>>> constant - a load from a volatile variable would probably have
provided
>>> similar functionality in this case)
>>>> LLVM (& specifically Sparse Conditional Constant
Propagation,
>>> llvm/lib/Transforms/Scalar/SCCP.cpp) optimizes this code noting
that f1
>>> always returns 3, so rather than using the return value from the
call to
>>> f1, it ends up hardcoding the return value:
>>>> define dso_local i32 @main() local_unnamed_addr #1 {
>>>>
>>>> entry:
>>>>
>>>>    %call = tail call i32 @_Z2f1v()
>>>>
>>>>    ret i32 3
>>>>
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I consider this a bug - in that optnone is used to implement
-O0 for
>>> LTO, so it seemed to me that the correct behavior is for an optnone
>>> function to behave as though it were compiled in another object
file
>>> outside the purview of optimizations - interprocedural or
intraprocedural.
>>>> So I sent https://reviews.llvm.org/D100353 to fix that.
>>>>
>>>> Florian pointed out that this wasn't quite specified in the
LangRef,
>>> which says this about optnone:
>>>> This function attribute indicates that most optimization passes
will
>>> skip this function, with the exception of interprocedural
optimization
>>> passes. Code generation defaults to the “fast” instruction
selector. This
>>> attribute cannot be used together with the alwaysinline attribute;
this
>>> attribute is also incompatible with the minsize attribute and the
optsize
>>> attribute.
>>>> This attribute requires the noinline attribute to be specified
on the
>>> function as well, so the function is never inlined into any caller.
Only
>>> functions with the alwaysinline attribute are valid candidates for
inlining
>>> into the body of this function.
>>>>
>>>> So the spec of optnone is unclear (or arguably explicitly
disallows)
>>> whether interprocedural optimizations should treat optnone
functions in any
>>> particular way.
>>>> So I was going to update the wording to rephrase this to say
>>> "Interprocedural optimizations should treat this function as
though it were
>>> defined in an isolated module/object." (perhaps
"interprocedural
>>> optimizations should treat optnone functions as opaque" or
"as though they
>>> were only declarations")
>>>> The choice of this direction was based on my (possibly
incorrect or
>>> debatable) understanding of optnone, that it was equivalent to the
function
>>> being in a separate/non-lto object. (this seems consistent with the
way
>>> optnone is used to implement -O0 under lto - you could imagine a
user
>>> debugging a binary, using -O0 for the code they're interested
in debugging,
>>> and potentially using an interactive debugger to change some state
in the
>>> function causing it to return a different value - which would get
quite
>>> confusing if the return value was effectively hardcoded into the
caller)
>>>> What're folks thoughts on this?
>>>>
>>>> - Dave
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev

David Blaikie via llvm-dev

2021-Apr-19 03:51 UTC

head link

[llvm-dev] Revisiting/refining the definition of optnone with interprocedural transformations

On Sun, Apr 18, 2021 at 8:29 PM Johannes Doerfert <
johannesdoerfert at gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm very much in favor of `noipa`. It comes up every few months
> and it would be widely useful.

Out of curiosity, what sort of uses do you have in mind for it?

> I'd expose it via Clang and -O0 could
> set it as well (for the LTO case).
>
> When it comes to inexact definitions, optnone functions, and existing
> attributes,
> I'd be in favor of 1) always allowing the use of existing attributes,
>
I'm not sure what you mean by this ^ - could you rephrase/elaborate?

> and 2) not deriving new ones for an inexact or optnone definition.
>
Also this ^ I'm similarly confused/unclear about.

> This is how the Attributor determines if it a function level attribute
> could
> be derived or if we should only stick with the existing information:
>
>      /// Determine whether the function \p F is IPO amendable
>      ///
>      /// If a function is exactly defined or it has alwaysinline attribute
>      /// and is viable to be inlined, we say it is IPO amendable
>      bool isFunctionIPOAmendable(const Function &F) {
>        return F.hasExactDefinition() ||
> InfoCache.InlineableFunctions.count(&F);
>      }
>
> So, if the above check doesn't hold we will not add new attributes but
> we will
> still use existing ones. This seems to me the right way to allow
> users/frontends
> to provide information selectively.
>
Yep, that sounds right to me (if you put attributes on an optnone/noipa
function, they should be usable/used - but none should be discovered/added
later by inspection of the implementation of such a function) - currently
doesn't seem to be the case for the (old pass manager?) FunctionAttrs pass,
so I have to figure some things out there.

> That said, right now the Attributor will not propagate any information
> from an
> optnone function or derive new information. Nevertheless, I'd be in
> favor to allow
> existing information to be used for IPO.
>
*nod* I think I'm with you there.

- Dave

>
> ~ Johannes
>
>
> On 4/18/21 8:40 PM, David Blaikie via llvm-dev wrote:
> > Prototyping the idea of "isDefinitionExact" returning false
for optnone
> > (whether or not we split it out into noipo or not) I've tripped
over
> > something it seems I created 5 years ago:
> >
> > I added some IPC support for optnone to GlobalsModRef:
> >
>
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/c662b501508200076e581beb9345a7631173a1d8#diff-55664e96a7ce3533b46f12c6906acecb2bd9a599e2b79c97506af4b1b4873fa1
> > - so it wouldn't conclude properties of an optnone function.
> >
> > But I then made a follow-up commit (without a lot of context as to
why,
> > unfortunately :/ ) that allowed GlobasModRef to use existing
attributes
> on
> > an optnone function:
> >
>
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/7a9b788830da0a426fb0ff0a4cec6d592bb026e9#diff-55664e96a7ce3533b46f12c6906acecb2bd9a599e2b79c97506af4b1b4873fa1
> >
> > But it seems making the function definition inexact, breaks the unit
> > testing added in the latter commit. I suppose then it's an open
question
> > whether existing attributes on an inexact definition should be used at
> all?
> > (I don't know what motivated me to support them for optnone)
> >
> > Oh, and here's a change from Chandler around the same time
similarly
> > blocking some ipo for optnone:
> >
>
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/0fb998110abcf3d67495d12f854a1576b182d811#diff-cc618a9485181a9246c4e0367dc9f1a19d3cb6811d1e488713f53a753d3da60c
> > - in this case preventing FunctionAttrs from deriving the attributes
for
> an
> > optnone function. That functionality looks like it can be subsumed by
the
> > inexact approach - applying inexact to optnone and removing the change
in
> > Chandler's patch still passes the tests. (hmm, tested - not quite,
but
> more
> > work to do there)
> >
> > On Sun, Apr 18, 2021 at 10:06 AM David Blaikie <dblaikie at
gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, Apr 18, 2021 at 9:43 AM Roman Lebedev <lebedev.ri at
gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> There's 'noipa' attribute in GCC, currently it is
not supported by
> clang.
> >>> Theoretically, how would one implement it?
> >>>
> >> If we wanted to do this really robustly, I guess we might have to
> >> introduce some sort of "here's the usual way to check if
this is a
> >> definition/get the body of the function" (which for noipa it
says
> "there is
> >> no body/don't look here") and "no, really, I need
the definition" (for
> >> actual code generation).
> >>
> >> Though I'm not advocating for that - I'm OK with a more
> ad-hoc/best-effort
> >> implementation targeting the -O0/debugging assistant
> >> __attribute__((optnone)) kind of use case - happy to fix cases as
they
> come
> >> up to improve the user experience for these situations.
> >>
> >> Maybe we could get away with generalizing this by having an
optnone (or
> >> noipa) function appear "interposable" even though it
doesn't have a real
> >> interposable linkage? That should hinder/disable any IPA.
> >>
> >> Hmm, looks like GlobalValue::isDefinitionExact would be best to
return
> >> false in this case (whatever we end up naming it) /maybe/
> >> mayBeDerefined should return false too.
> >>
> >> Yeah, I guess if we can implement such a robust generalization,
then
> it'd
> >> probably be OK/easy enough to implement both noipa and optnone
implies
> >> noipa the same as it implies noinline (well, I guess noipa would
subsume
> >> the noinline implication - if the function isn't exact, the
inliner
> won't
> >> inline it so there wouldn't be any need for the explicit
noinline)
> >>
> >>
> >>> With your proposal, clang `noipa` attribute could be lowered
> >>> to `optnone` on the whole function, To me that seems like
> >>> too much of a hammer, should that be the path forward.
> >>>
> >> I agree that lowering noipa to optnone would be a very aggressive
form
> of
> >> noipa - likely if we want to support noipa it would be to support
it
> >> separately and maybe either lower -O0 (& maybe
> __attribute__((optnone))) to
> >> both optnone+noipa+noinline (since optnone already implies
noinline) or
> >> make optnone imply ipa/be a superset of it implicitly (if we do
have
> noipa
> >> it's probably best to have "optnone requires noipa"
the same way
> "optnone
> >> requires noinline" rather than an implicit superset sort of
thing).
> >>
> >> I think that'd certainly be appropriate for -O0, and I'd
argue it'd be
> >> appropriate for __attribute__((optnone)) because I think it'd
be what
> >> people expect/is consistent with the motivation for the attribute
(for
> >> debuggability - so you wouldn't want a caller to not fill in
> >> parameters/pass in garbage because it knows the implementation
doesn't
> >> matter, or not use the result because it knows what the result
should
> be).
> >>
> >>
> >>> Would it not be best to not conflate the two,
> >>> and just introduce the `noipa` attribute?
> >>>
> >> I think we'd still want to conflate them for user-facing
functionality,
> >> even if they were separable at the IR level.
> >>
> >> - Dave
> >>
> >>
> >>> Roman
> >>>
> >>> On Sun, Apr 18, 2021 at 7:37 PM David Blaikie <dblaikie at
gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>>> While trying to reproduce some debug info thing (I
don't have the
> exact
> >>> example at the moment - but I think it was more aggressive
than the
> example
> >>> I have now, but something like this:
> >>>> __attribute__((optnone)) int f1() {
> >>>>    return 3;
> >>>> }
> >>>> int main() {
> >>>>    return f1();
> >>>> }
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> (actually I think in my case I had a variable to hold the
return value
> >>> from f1, with the intent that this variable's location
couldn't use a
> >>> constant - a load from a volatile variable would probably have
provided
> >>> similar functionality in this case)
> >>>> LLVM (& specifically Sparse Conditional Constant
Propagation,
> >>> llvm/lib/Transforms/Scalar/SCCP.cpp) optimizes this code
noting that f1
> >>> always returns 3, so rather than using the return value from
the call
> to
> >>> f1, it ends up hardcoding the return value:
> >>>> define dso_local i32 @main() local_unnamed_addr #1 {
> >>>>
> >>>> entry:
> >>>>
> >>>>    %call = tail call i32 @_Z2f1v()
> >>>>
> >>>>    ret i32 3
> >>>>
> >>>> }
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> I consider this a bug - in that optnone is used to
implement -O0 for
> >>> LTO, so it seemed to me that the correct behavior is for an
optnone
> >>> function to behave as though it were compiled in another
object file
> >>> outside the purview of optimizations - interprocedural or
> intraprocedural.
> >>>> So I sent https://reviews.llvm.org/D100353 to fix that.
> >>>>
> >>>> Florian pointed out that this wasn't quite specified
in the LangRef,
> >>> which says this about optnone:
> >>>> This function attribute indicates that most optimization
passes will
> >>> skip this function, with the exception of interprocedural
optimization
> >>> passes. Code generation defaults to the “fast” instruction
selector.
> This
> >>> attribute cannot be used together with the alwaysinline
attribute; this
> >>> attribute is also incompatible with the minsize attribute and
the
> optsize
> >>> attribute.
> >>>> This attribute requires the noinline attribute to be
specified on the
> >>> function as well, so the function is never inlined into any
caller.
> Only
> >>> functions with the alwaysinline attribute are valid candidates
for
> inlining
> >>> into the body of this function.
> >>>>
> >>>> So the spec of optnone is unclear (or arguably explicitly
disallows)
> >>> whether interprocedural optimizations should treat optnone
functions
> in any
> >>> particular way.
> >>>> So I was going to update the wording to rephrase this to
say
> >>> "Interprocedural optimizations should treat this function
as though it
> were
> >>> defined in an isolated module/object." (perhaps
"interprocedural
> >>> optimizations should treat optnone functions as opaque"
or "as though
> they
> >>> were only declarations")
> >>>> The choice of this direction was based on my (possibly
incorrect or
> >>> debatable) understanding of optnone, that it was equivalent to
the
> function
> >>> being in a separate/non-lto object. (this seems consistent
with the way
> >>> optnone is used to implement -O0 under lto - you could imagine
a user
> >>> debugging a binary, using -O0 for the code they're
interested in
> debugging,
> >>> and potentially using an interactive debugger to change some
state in
> the
> >>> function causing it to return a different value - which would
get quite
> >>> confusing if the return value was effectively hardcoded into
the
> caller)
> >>>> What're folks thoughts on this?
> >>>>
> >>>> - Dave
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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/20210418/0c69dbb7/attachment.html>

Mehdi AMINI via llvm-dev

2021-Apr-19 21:34 UTC

head link

[llvm-dev] Revisiting/refining the definition of optnone with interprocedural transformations

On Sun, Apr 18, 2021 at 8:29 PM Johannes Doerfert via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> I'm very much in favor of `noipa`. It comes up every few months
> and it would be widely useful. I'd expose it via Clang and -O0 could
> set it as well (for the LTO case).
>
> When it comes to inexact definitions, optnone functions, and existing
> attributes,
> I'd be in favor of 1) always allowing the use of existing attributes,
> and 2) not deriving new ones for an inexact or optnone definition.
>
+1 from me on this FWIW!

-- 
Mehdi


>
> This is how the Attributor determines if it a function level attribute
> could
> be derived or if we should only stick with the existing information:
>
>      /// Determine whether the function \p F is IPO amendable
>      ///
>      /// If a function is exactly defined or it has alwaysinline attribute
>      /// and is viable to be inlined, we say it is IPO amendable
>      bool isFunctionIPOAmendable(const Function &F) {
>        return F.hasExactDefinition() ||
> InfoCache.InlineableFunctions.count(&F);
>      }
>
> So, if the above check doesn't hold we will not add new attributes but
> we will
> still use existing ones. This seems to me the right way to allow
> users/frontends
> to provide information selectively.
>
> That said, right now the Attributor will not propagate any information
> from an
> optnone function or derive new information. Nevertheless, I'd be in
> favor to allow
> existing information to be used for IPO.
>
> ~ Johannes
>
>
> On 4/18/21 8:40 PM, David Blaikie via llvm-dev wrote:
> > Prototyping the idea of "isDefinitionExact" returning false
for optnone
> > (whether or not we split it out into noipo or not) I've tripped
over
> > something it seems I created 5 years ago:
> >
> > I added some IPC support for optnone to GlobalsModRef:
> >
>
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/c662b501508200076e581beb9345a7631173a1d8#diff-55664e96a7ce3533b46f12c6906acecb2bd9a599e2b79c97506af4b1b4873fa1
> > - so it wouldn't conclude properties of an optnone function.
> >
> > But I then made a follow-up commit (without a lot of context as to
why,
> > unfortunately :/ ) that allowed GlobasModRef to use existing
attributes
> on
> > an optnone function:
> >
>
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/7a9b788830da0a426fb0ff0a4cec6d592bb026e9#diff-55664e96a7ce3533b46f12c6906acecb2bd9a599e2b79c97506af4b1b4873fa1
> >
> > But it seems making the function definition inexact, breaks the unit
> > testing added in the latter commit. I suppose then it's an open
question
> > whether existing attributes on an inexact definition should be used at
> all?
> > (I don't know what motivated me to support them for optnone)
> >
> > Oh, and here's a change from Chandler around the same time
similarly
> > blocking some ipo for optnone:
> >
>
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/0fb998110abcf3d67495d12f854a1576b182d811#diff-cc618a9485181a9246c4e0367dc9f1a19d3cb6811d1e488713f53a753d3da60c
> > - in this case preventing FunctionAttrs from deriving the attributes
for
> an
> > optnone function. That functionality looks like it can be subsumed by
the
> > inexact approach - applying inexact to optnone and removing the change
in
> > Chandler's patch still passes the tests. (hmm, tested - not quite,
but
> more
> > work to do there)
> >
> > On Sun, Apr 18, 2021 at 10:06 AM David Blaikie <dblaikie at
gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, Apr 18, 2021 at 9:43 AM Roman Lebedev <lebedev.ri at
gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> There's 'noipa' attribute in GCC, currently it is
not supported by
> clang.
> >>> Theoretically, how would one implement it?
> >>>
> >> If we wanted to do this really robustly, I guess we might have to
> >> introduce some sort of "here's the usual way to check if
this is a
> >> definition/get the body of the function" (which for noipa it
says
> "there is
> >> no body/don't look here") and "no, really, I need
the definition" (for
> >> actual code generation).
> >>
> >> Though I'm not advocating for that - I'm OK with a more
> ad-hoc/best-effort
> >> implementation targeting the -O0/debugging assistant
> >> __attribute__((optnone)) kind of use case - happy to fix cases as
they
> come
> >> up to improve the user experience for these situations.
> >>
> >> Maybe we could get away with generalizing this by having an
optnone (or
> >> noipa) function appear "interposable" even though it
doesn't have a real
> >> interposable linkage? That should hinder/disable any IPA.
> >>
> >> Hmm, looks like GlobalValue::isDefinitionExact would be best to
return
> >> false in this case (whatever we end up naming it) /maybe/
> >> mayBeDerefined should return false too.
> >>
> >> Yeah, I guess if we can implement such a robust generalization,
then
> it'd
> >> probably be OK/easy enough to implement both noipa and optnone
implies
> >> noipa the same as it implies noinline (well, I guess noipa would
subsume
> >> the noinline implication - if the function isn't exact, the
inliner
> won't
> >> inline it so there wouldn't be any need for the explicit
noinline)
> >>
> >>
> >>> With your proposal, clang `noipa` attribute could be lowered
> >>> to `optnone` on the whole function, To me that seems like
> >>> too much of a hammer, should that be the path forward.
> >>>
> >> I agree that lowering noipa to optnone would be a very aggressive
form
> of
> >> noipa - likely if we want to support noipa it would be to support
it
> >> separately and maybe either lower -O0 (& maybe
> __attribute__((optnone))) to
> >> both optnone+noipa+noinline (since optnone already implies
noinline) or
> >> make optnone imply ipa/be a superset of it implicitly (if we do
have
> noipa
> >> it's probably best to have "optnone requires noipa"
the same way
> "optnone
> >> requires noinline" rather than an implicit superset sort of
thing).
> >>
> >> I think that'd certainly be appropriate for -O0, and I'd
argue it'd be
> >> appropriate for __attribute__((optnone)) because I think it'd
be what
> >> people expect/is consistent with the motivation for the attribute
(for
> >> debuggability - so you wouldn't want a caller to not fill in
> >> parameters/pass in garbage because it knows the implementation
doesn't
> >> matter, or not use the result because it knows what the result
should
> be).
> >>
> >>
> >>> Would it not be best to not conflate the two,
> >>> and just introduce the `noipa` attribute?
> >>>
> >> I think we'd still want to conflate them for user-facing
functionality,
> >> even if they were separable at the IR level.
> >>
> >> - Dave
> >>
> >>
> >>> Roman
> >>>
> >>> On Sun, Apr 18, 2021 at 7:37 PM David Blaikie <dblaikie at
gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>>> While trying to reproduce some debug info thing (I
don't have the
> exact
> >>> example at the moment - but I think it was more aggressive
than the
> example
> >>> I have now, but something like this:
> >>>> __attribute__((optnone)) int f1() {
> >>>>    return 3;
> >>>> }
> >>>> int main() {
> >>>>    return f1();
> >>>> }
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> (actually I think in my case I had a variable to hold the
return value
> >>> from f1, with the intent that this variable's location
couldn't use a
> >>> constant - a load from a volatile variable would probably have
provided
> >>> similar functionality in this case)
> >>>> LLVM (& specifically Sparse Conditional Constant
Propagation,
> >>> llvm/lib/Transforms/Scalar/SCCP.cpp) optimizes this code
noting that f1
> >>> always returns 3, so rather than using the return value from
the call
> to
> >>> f1, it ends up hardcoding the return value:
> >>>> define dso_local i32 @main() local_unnamed_addr #1 {
> >>>>
> >>>> entry:
> >>>>
> >>>>    %call = tail call i32 @_Z2f1v()
> >>>>
> >>>>    ret i32 3
> >>>>
> >>>> }
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> I consider this a bug - in that optnone is used to
implement -O0 for
> >>> LTO, so it seemed to me that the correct behavior is for an
optnone
> >>> function to behave as though it were compiled in another
object file
> >>> outside the purview of optimizations - interprocedural or
> intraprocedural.
> >>>> So I sent https://reviews.llvm.org/D100353 to fix that.
> >>>>
> >>>> Florian pointed out that this wasn't quite specified
in the LangRef,
> >>> which says this about optnone:
> >>>> This function attribute indicates that most optimization
passes will
> >>> skip this function, with the exception of interprocedural
optimization
> >>> passes. Code generation defaults to the “fast” instruction
selector.
> This
> >>> attribute cannot be used together with the alwaysinline
attribute; this
> >>> attribute is also incompatible with the minsize attribute and
the
> optsize
> >>> attribute.
> >>>> This attribute requires the noinline attribute to be
specified on the
> >>> function as well, so the function is never inlined into any
caller.
> Only
> >>> functions with the alwaysinline attribute are valid candidates
for
> inlining
> >>> into the body of this function.
> >>>>
> >>>> So the spec of optnone is unclear (or arguably explicitly
disallows)
> >>> whether interprocedural optimizations should treat optnone
functions
> in any
> >>> particular way.
> >>>> So I was going to update the wording to rephrase this to
say
> >>> "Interprocedural optimizations should treat this function
as though it
> were
> >>> defined in an isolated module/object." (perhaps
"interprocedural
> >>> optimizations should treat optnone functions as opaque"
or "as though
> they
> >>> were only declarations")
> >>>> The choice of this direction was based on my (possibly
incorrect or
> >>> debatable) understanding of optnone, that it was equivalent to
the
> function
> >>> being in a separate/non-lto object. (this seems consistent
with the way
> >>> optnone is used to implement -O0 under lto - you could imagine
a user
> >>> debugging a binary, using -O0 for the code they're
interested in
> debugging,
> >>> and potentially using an interactive debugger to change some
state in
> the
> >>> function causing it to return a different value - which would
get quite
> >>> confusing if the return value was effectively hardcoded into
the
> caller)
> >>>> What're folks thoughts on this?
> >>>>
> >>>> - Dave
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > LLVM Developers mailing list
> > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> > https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20210419/6097d5dd/attachment.html>

llvm dev - Apr 2021 - Revisiting/refining the definition of optnone with interprocedural transformations

[llvm-dev] Revisiting/refining the definition of optnone with interprocedural transformations

[llvm-dev] Revisiting/refining the definition of optnone with interprocedural transformations

[llvm-dev] Revisiting/refining the definition of optnone with interprocedural transformations