similar to: [ThinLTO] assert(GS != DefinedGlobals.end()) failed in FunctionImport.cpp

Hello Teresa, Thank you for your reply. I’m trying to create a small repro but find it hard to nail down because originally it is a big build. This happens with gold linker. Thanks, Taewook From: Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google.com> Date: Thursday, July 28, 2016 at 5:08 PM To: Taewook Oh <twoh at fb.com> Cc: via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> Subject: Re: [llvm-dev]

Hi Taewook, On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 4:38 PM, Taewook Oh via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Encountered “assert(GS != DefinedGlobals.end())” failure while running > ThinLTO. The assertion statement is in MustPreserveGV lambda function in > llvm::thinLTOInternalizeModule (lib/Transforms/IPO/FunctionImport.cpp). > > > > It seems that the assertion fails

Hello Teresa, Thank you for your analysis. One thing to note is that the global materializer materializes the value as a function declaration, not a function definition. As I pasted on my first email, ; Materializable ; Function Attrs: nounwind uwtable define weak_odr void @foo(%1*) unnamed_addr #7 comdat($comdat1) align 2 personality i32 (...)* @__gxx_personality_v0 {} is materialized to ;

On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 5:18 PM, Taewook Oh <twoh at fb.com> wrote: > Hello Teresa, > > > > Thank you for your reply. I’m trying to create a small repro but find it > hard to nail down because originally it is a big build. This happens with > gold linker. > I think I need to see a smaller test case, looking through the code I'm not sure how we ended up in this

It was r274523. I’m not sure it was the same module. By mistake I restarted the build with the previous version without backing backing up the build artifacts :( Thanks, Taewook From: Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google.com> Date: Friday, July 29, 2016 at 3:30 PM To: Taewook Oh <twoh at fb.com> Cc: via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] [ThinLTO]

On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 2:25 PM, Taewook Oh <twoh at fb.com> wrote: > Hello Teresa, > > > > Thank you for your analysis. One thing to note is that the global > materializer materializes the value as a function declaration, not a > function definition. As I pasted on my first email, > > > > ; Materializable > > ; Function Attrs: nounwind uwtable >

Yes, if I drop the debug flag then the original problem (assertion failure) comes back. Thanks, Taewook From: Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google.com> Date: Friday, July 29, 2016 at 3:52 PM To: Taewook Oh <twoh at fb.com> Cc: via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] [ThinLTO] assert(GS != DefinedGlobals.end()) failed in FunctionImport.cpp On Fri, Jul

On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 3:40 PM, Taewook Oh <twoh at fb.com> wrote: > It was r274523. I’m not sure it was the same module. By mistake I > restarted the build with the previous version without backing backing up > the build artifacts :( > So a couple things were added to gold since then, index-based linkonce/weak resolution and some more aggressive internalization. I don't

Ok, good to know. Any luck on a smaller test case for either of the problems? I tried building all the C/C++ SPEC cpu2006 benchmarks with -g -flto=thin at head and didn't get the failure. Let me try to look into how the debug metadata is normally dropped from the imported decl. In the meantime, could you find out the answers to the questions I had (see below) about the linkage type of the

Hi Taewook, I had a better fix for this approved (D23015), but when I went to merge this with the new LTO API I committed for pcc last week I discovered that his new API already has the same effect. I will update the bug with this info as well. Can you confirm that with a compiler built after 278338 that this problem no longer occurs? Also, any luck on a smaller test case for the -g issue? Now

No problem! I want to make sure you aren't blocked on trying ThinLTO. Thanks, Teresa On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 2:50 PM, Taewook Oh <twoh at fb.com> wrote: > Hello Teresa, > > > > Sorry I was working on another LLVM issue that more urgent for us, so > didn’t have much time to work on smaller test case. I’ll try the new API > and see if the issus is gone. Thanks! >

On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 8:55 PM, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> wrote: > Hey, > > As I’m playing with Metadata lazy-loading, I added a verifier right before > running the IRLinker in FunctionImport.cpp, and it does not pass (on > current trunk) in a few cases. One that I looked at ended up with aliases > pointing to available_externally functions for instance. >

Hey, As I’m playing with Metadata lazy-loading, I added a verifier right before running the IRLinker in FunctionImport.cpp, and it does not pass (on current trunk) in a few cases. One that I looked at ended up with aliases pointing to available_externally functions for instance. I’m hesitant about breaking the IR verifier like that before calling the IRLinker. The alternative I can see now would

> On Dec 23, 2016, at 9:34 AM, Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google.com> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 8:55 PM, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com <mailto:mehdi.amini at apple.com>> wrote: > Hey, > > As I’m playing with Metadata lazy-loading, I added a verifier right before running the IRLinker in FunctionImport.cpp, and it does not pass (on

On Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 11:04 AM, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> wrote: > > On Dec 23, 2016, at 9:34 AM, Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google.com> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 8:55 PM, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> > wrote: > >> Hey, >> >> As I’m playing with Metadata lazy-loading, I added a verifier right

We had the same problem with verification when merging/linking 2 modules: a compile unit is not listed in named metadata (llvm.dbg.cu), We worked around this problem by using the DebugInfoFinder processModule function, which identifies all the compile units in the new module, by visiting all the subprogram scopes and the already available compile units. However, this succeeds verification only if

It seems that the patch works for me as well, though the linker crashes with another error after that. Thanks! Mehdi, I couldn’t quite understand what do you mean by you don’t have a repro so you couldn’t upstream the patch. Aren’t .ll files you attached sufficient to submit along with the patch? If there is anything I can help you to upstream it, please let me know. -- Taewook On 7/22/16,

Hello, While trying ThinLTO, I ran into an assertion failure in IRMover: https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=28180. I found that the assertion failure is happening because IRMover tries to map the metadata that already mapped in the destination module, and it seems that this happens because two different IRMovers are used for the same destination (or composite) module. During LTO, an IRMover

Yes, I have the repro, though I can’t publish it externally. It would be great if you can upstream the patch so I can try it. Thank you for your explanation as well! -- Taewook From: <mehdi.amini at apple.com> on behalf of Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> Date: Friday, July 22, 2016 at 2:16 PM To: Taewook Oh <twoh at fb.com> Cc: via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at

I just hit another issue: before of ODR type uniquing on bitcode loading, we can end-up with a metadata graph that include metadata from the destination module, including a DICompileUnit. Unfortunately this compile-unit is not listed in llvm.dbg.cu and this does not pass the verifier. CC a few folks more aware of debug info that I am: is there a plan to make llvm.dbg.cu disappear? — Mehdi >