Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Implement new attributes in the Clang compiler #2

Closed
connorkuehl opened this issue Jan 11, 2019 · 19 comments
Closed

Implement new attributes in the Clang compiler #2

connorkuehl opened this issue Jan 11, 2019 · 19 comments

Comments

@connorkuehl
Copy link

How do we add support for things like __randomize_layout and __no_randomize_layout?

@connorkuehl
Copy link
Author

I found this in the Compiler Internals Manual. I haven't found an appropriate analog from the context of the Clang Plugin API.

@nforbus nforbus changed the title Compiler tags attributes (formerly called compiler tags) Jan 18, 2019
@nforbus
Copy link

nforbus commented Jan 18, 2019

So we already have randstruct registered randstruct with the FrontendPluginRegistry, so we can call our plugin from command line via -plugin randstruct, is that correct?

So at this point what we need is a way for the plugin to be called from structs declared with a calling component, and attributes won't work because we're not going to modify the attr.td file (which is a route we would go if we were not doing a plugin).

Currently looking at other plugins to see how they manage this, nothing so far though.

@tim-pugh tim-pugh changed the title attributes (formerly called compiler tags) attributes tag implementing Jan 22, 2019
@tim-pugh
Copy link
Member

@jeffreytakahashi any progress on this?

@Nixoncole
Copy link

This is a lead from March 2017 that makes me believe we cannot add custom attributes without directly editing Clang. http://clang-developers.42468.n3.nabble.com/User-defined-attributes-in-clang-plugins-td4055940.html

This is a blog post that (kind of?) outlines using the clang attribute "annotate", to create a custom annotation that we can pull off at the "bitcode level": https://blog.quarkslab.com/implementing-a-custom-directive-handler-in-clang.html - I want to speak with ya'll about this tomorrow, because I don't have enough contextual knowledge to understand if we can use this.

Official docs for the llvm "intrinsic" leveraged by the blog post. I dont feel like it provided me with much information, but maybe someone can connect the dots? - http://llvm.org/docs/LangRef.html#llvm-var-annotation-intrinsic

@jeffreytakahashi
Copy link

@tim-pugh See above post from Cole, we're really struggling with this.

@tim-pugh
Copy link
Member

https://stackoverflow.com/questions/4736738/how-can-you-add-a-new-keyword-to-clang-a-keyword-that-would-be-treated-as-main

My idea of an alternative wouldn't fix anything (it would make it more complicated actually). It would be adding a keyword to clang which they state can be more error prone.

@tim-pugh
Copy link
Member

https://clang.llvm.org/docs/ClangPlugins.html

in here you can read a section talking about "pragmas". I'm really not sure if using this would be the correct approach, but it talks about registering them with the clang compiler via a plugin.

@jeffreytakahashi
Copy link

jeffreytakahashi commented Jan 28, 2019

So after a lot of reading and a bit of poking we can add annotations to both variables and functions such that they show up in llvm metadata, however they do not when assigned to structs. In either case, if we are reading this correctly (and we would really like someone to verify that we are). I will post screenshots soon, and we will get some links up soon, but it appears that even using attribute((packed)) does not show up in the bytecode so we're not sure if it's just there in a way we cannot see.

@jeffreytakahashi
Copy link

screen shot 2019-01-27 at 9 28 22 pm

screen shot 2019-01-27 at 9 26 17 pm

@jeffreytakahashi
Copy link

jeffreytakahashi commented Jan 28, 2019

@Nixoncole
Copy link

Found a half-baked explanation for parsing the metadata: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/15114284/llvm-get-annotations

@jeffreytakahashi
Copy link

Now discussing possibly attempting to actually get the attributes we needed upstreamed.

@jeffreytakahashi
Copy link

jeffreytakahashi commented Jan 29, 2019

Here is an example of an attribute in clang that applies to struct/class/union as a starting point:

https://github.com/llvm-mirror/clang/search?q=empty_bases&unscoped_q=empty_bases
https://clang.llvm.org/docs/AttributeReference.html#empty-bases

Per some other reading, boilerplate might be relevant to future research in order to implement this properly:
https://clang.llvm.org/docs/InternalsManual.html#boilerplate

@tim-pugh tim-pugh pinned this issue Jan 29, 2019
@connorkuehl
Copy link
Author

Once we have our attributes based on the research and discussion here, there are separate issues for integrating them into the plugin with their corresponding behaviors. llvm#98 llvm#97

@connorkuehl
Copy link
Author

connorkuehl commented Jan 29, 2019

Looks like they've updated their Getting Started page with instructions for working with their official git repo due to their migration! Yay! 🎊

Once our fork of Clang has the required attributes we need, let's prepare the patch and disseminate it to the team so that we can implement manual structure selection as part of our MVP ASAP.

https://llvm.org/docs/GettingStarted.html#sending-patches

We'll also then be able to prepare the e-mail for the mailing list, get Bart's sign off, then send it off to the clang commits mailing list.

@tim-pugh
Copy link
Member

I've fired off a email to the sponsor letting him know the game plan. You can find the email in the google team drive.

@tim-pugh
Copy link
Member

tim-pugh commented Jan 30, 2019

This guide may be beneficial to read as well:

https://llvm.org/docs/DeveloperPolicy.html

I have the contact at Intel I can reach out to once more which I suggest we do. He may be able to shed some light on the process and help guide us.

@tim-pugh
Copy link
Member

tim-pugh commented Feb 1, 2019

We've got the instructions to build LLVM (Linux based systems) here:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1uJjruksHppqdo3GA2fv3OsyIJpXW_hALRvKC-2oWXSo/edit

We've attempted to add the attribute, but working on this yesterday the build failed.

Connor mentioned sending a patch out. In the meantime I'll help people get things setup on their machines.

I suspect there is a repo waiting for us to commit to, but will need to discuss this with other team members. This will likely be the method we go to receive the patch, after some git fu changing the origin.

@connorkuehl connorkuehl transferred this issue from clang-randstruct/plugin Feb 4, 2019
@connorkuehl connorkuehl changed the title attributes tag implementing Implement new attributes in the Clang compiler Feb 4, 2019
@connorkuehl connorkuehl added this to the Minimum Viable Product milestone Feb 4, 2019
@connorkuehl
Copy link
Author

Closed by the following commits:

3b9829e
f8da259

tim-pugh pushed a commit that referenced this issue Feb 20, 2019
(test commit #2 migrating to git)

llvm-svn: 353533
tim-pugh pushed a commit that referenced this issue Feb 20, 2019
connorkuehl pushed a commit that referenced this issue Mar 1, 2019
/Users/buildslave/jenkins/workspace/clang-stage1-configure-RA/llvm/projects/compiler-rt/test/asan/TestCases/Posix/bcmp_test.cc:14:12: error: CHECK: expected string not found in input
 // CHECK: {{llvm#1.*bcmp}}
           ^
<stdin>:2:57: note: scanning from here
==34677==ERROR: AddressSanitizer: stack-buffer-overflow on address 0x7ffee93777c4 at pc 0x0001068a7285 bp 0x7ffee9377770 sp 0x7ffee9376ef8
                                                        ^
<stdin>:6:20: note: possible intended match here
 #2 0x106888e77 in main bcmp_test.cc:12
                   ^

llvm-svn: 354888
connorkuehl pushed a commit that referenced this issue Mar 1, 2019
connorkuehl pushed a commit that referenced this issue Mar 8, 2019
Introduces memory leak in FunctionTest.GetPointerAlignment that breaks sanitizer buildbots:

```
=================================================================
==2453==ERROR: LeakSanitizer: detected memory leaks

Direct leak of 128 byte(s) in 1 object(s) allocated from:
    #0 0x610428 in operator new(unsigned long) /b/sanitizer-x86_64-linux-bootstrap/build/llvm/projects/compiler-rt/lib/asan/asan_new_delete.cc:105
    llvm#1 0x16936bc in llvm::User::operator new(unsigned long) /b/sanitizer-x86_64-linux-bootstrap/build/llvm/lib/IR/User.cpp:151:19
    #2 0x7c3fe9 in Create /b/sanitizer-x86_64-linux-bootstrap/build/llvm/include/llvm/IR/Function.h:144:12
    #3 0x7c3fe9 in (anonymous namespace)::FunctionTest_GetPointerAlignment_Test::TestBody() /b/sanitizer-x86_64-linux-bootstrap/build/llvm/unittests/IR/FunctionTest.cpp:136
    #4 0x1a836a0 in HandleExceptionsInMethodIfSupported<testing::Test, void> /b/sanitizer-x86_64-linux-bootstrap/build/llvm/utils/unittest/googletest/src/gtest.cc
    #5 0x1a836a0 in testing::Test::Run() /b/sanitizer-x86_64-linux-bootstrap/build/llvm/utils/unittest/googletest/src/gtest.cc:2474
    #6 0x1a85c55 in testing::TestInfo::Run() /b/sanitizer-x86_64-linux-bootstrap/build/llvm/utils/unittest/googletest/src/gtest.cc:2656:11
    #7 0x1a870d0 in testing::TestCase::Run() /b/sanitizer-x86_64-linux-bootstrap/build/llvm/utils/unittest/googletest/src/gtest.cc:2774:28
    #8 0x1aa5b84 in testing::internal::UnitTestImpl::RunAllTests() /b/sanitizer-x86_64-linux-bootstrap/build/llvm/utils/unittest/googletest/src/gtest.cc:4649:43
    #9 0x1aa4d30 in HandleExceptionsInMethodIfSupported<testing::internal::UnitTestImpl, bool> /b/sanitizer-x86_64-linux-bootstrap/build/llvm/utils/unittest/googletest/src/gtest.cc
    #10 0x1aa4d30 in testing::UnitTest::Run() /b/sanitizer-x86_64-linux-bootstrap/build/llvm/utils/unittest/googletest/src/gtest.cc:4257
    #11 0x1a6b656 in RUN_ALL_TESTS /b/sanitizer-x86_64-linux-bootstrap/build/llvm/utils/unittest/googletest/include/gtest/gtest.h:2233:46
    #12 0x1a6b656 in main /b/sanitizer-x86_64-linux-bootstrap/build/llvm/utils/unittest/UnitTestMain/TestMain.cpp:50
    #13 0x7f5af37a22e0 in __libc_start_main (/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libc.so.6+0x202e0)

Indirect leak of 40 byte(s) in 1 object(s) allocated from:
    #0 0x610428 in operator new(unsigned long) /b/sanitizer-x86_64-linux-bootstrap/build/llvm/projects/compiler-rt/lib/asan/asan_new_delete.cc:105
    llvm#1 0x151be6b in make_unique<llvm::ValueSymbolTable> /b/sanitizer-x86_64-linux-bootstrap/build/llvm/include/llvm/ADT/STLExtras.h:1349:29
    #2 0x151be6b in llvm::Function::Function(llvm::FunctionType*, llvm::GlobalValue::LinkageTypes, unsigned int, llvm::Twine const&, llvm::Module*) /b/sanitizer-x86_64-linux-bootstrap/build/llvm/lib/IR/Function.cpp:241
    #3 0x7c4006 in Create /b/sanitizer-x86_64-linux-bootstrap/build/llvm/include/llvm/IR/Function.h:144:16
    #4 0x7c4006 in (anonymous namespace)::FunctionTest_GetPointerAlignment_Test::TestBody() /b/sanitizer-x86_64-linux-bootstrap/build/llvm/unittests/IR/FunctionTest.cpp:136
    #5 0x1a836a0 in HandleExceptionsInMethodIfSupported<testing::Test, void> /b/sanitizer-x86_64-linux-bootstrap/build/llvm/utils/unittest/googletest/src/gtest.cc
    #6 0x1a836a0 in testing::Test::Run() /b/sanitizer-x86_64-linux-bootstrap/build/llvm/utils/unittest/googletest/src/gtest.cc:2474
    #7 0x1a85c55 in testing::TestInfo::Run() /b/sanitizer-x86_64-linux-bootstrap/build/llvm/utils/unittest/googletest/src/gtest.cc:2656:11
    #8 0x1a870d0 in testing::TestCase::Run() /b/sanitizer-x86_64-linux-bootstrap/build/llvm/utils/unittest/googletest/src/gtest.cc:2774:28
    #9 0x1aa5b84 in testing::internal::UnitTestImpl::RunAllTests() /b/sanitizer-x86_64-linux-bootstrap/build/llvm/utils/unittest/googletest/src/gtest.cc:4649:43
    #10 0x1aa4d30 in HandleExceptionsInMethodIfSupported<testing::internal::UnitTestImpl, bool> /b/sanitizer-x86_64-linux-bootstrap/build/llvm/utils/unittest/googletest/src/gtest.cc
    #11 0x1aa4d30 in testing::UnitTest::Run() /b/sanitizer-x86_64-linux-bootstrap/build/llvm/utils/unittest/googletest/src/gtest.cc:4257
    #12 0x1a6b656 in RUN_ALL_TESTS /b/sanitizer-x86_64-linux-bootstrap/build/llvm/utils/unittest/googletest/include/gtest/gtest.h:2233:46
    #13 0x1a6b656 in main /b/sanitizer-x86_64-linux-bootstrap/build/llvm/utils/unittest/UnitTestMain/TestMain.cpp:50
    #14 0x7f5af37a22e0 in __libc_start_main (/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libc.so.6+0x202e0)

SUMMARY: AddressSanitizer: 168 byte(s) leaked in 2 allocation(s).
```

See http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/sanitizer-x86_64-linux-bootstrap/builds/11358/steps/check-llvm%20asan/logs/stdio for more information.

Also introduces use-of-uninitialized-value in ConstantsTest.FoldGlobalVariablePtr:
```
==7070==WARNING: MemorySanitizer: use-of-uninitialized-value
    #0 0x14e703c in User /b/sanitizer-x86_64-linux-fast/build/llvm/include/llvm/IR/User.h:79:5
    llvm#1 0x14e703c in Constant /b/sanitizer-x86_64-linux-fast/build/llvm/include/llvm/IR/Constant.h:44
    #2 0x14e703c in llvm::GlobalValue::GlobalValue(llvm::Type*, llvm::Value::ValueTy, llvm::Use*, unsigned int, llvm::GlobalValue::LinkageTypes, llvm::Twine const&, unsigned int) /b/sanitizer-x86_64-linux-fast/build/llvm/include/llvm/IR/GlobalValue.h:78
    #3 0x14e5467 in GlobalObject /b/sanitizer-x86_64-linux-fast/build/llvm/include/llvm/IR/GlobalObject.h:34:9
    #4 0x14e5467 in llvm::GlobalVariable::GlobalVariable(llvm::Type*, bool, llvm::GlobalValue::LinkageTypes, llvm::Constant*, llvm::Twine const&, llvm::GlobalValue::ThreadLocalMode, unsigned int, bool) /b/sanitizer-x86_64-linux-fast/build/llvm/lib/IR/Globals.cpp:314
    #5 0x6938f1 in llvm::(anonymous namespace)::ConstantsTest_FoldGlobalVariablePtr_Test::TestBody() /b/sanitizer-x86_64-linux-fast/build/llvm/unittests/IR/ConstantsTest.cpp:565:18
    #6 0x1a240a1 in HandleExceptionsInMethodIfSupported<testing::Test, void> /b/sanitizer-x86_64-linux-fast/build/llvm/utils/unittest/googletest/src/gtest.cc
    #7 0x1a240a1 in testing::Test::Run() /b/sanitizer-x86_64-linux-fast/build/llvm/utils/unittest/googletest/src/gtest.cc:2474
    #8 0x1a26d26 in testing::TestInfo::Run() /b/sanitizer-x86_64-linux-fast/build/llvm/utils/unittest/googletest/src/gtest.cc:2656:11
    #9 0x1a2815f in testing::TestCase::Run() /b/sanitizer-x86_64-linux-fast/build/llvm/utils/unittest/googletest/src/gtest.cc:2774:28
    #10 0x1a43de8 in testing::internal::UnitTestImpl::RunAllTests() /b/sanitizer-x86_64-linux-fast/build/llvm/utils/unittest/googletest/src/gtest.cc:4649:43
    #11 0x1a42c47 in HandleExceptionsInMethodIfSupported<testing::internal::UnitTestImpl, bool> /b/sanitizer-x86_64-linux-fast/build/llvm/utils/unittest/googletest/src/gtest.cc
    #12 0x1a42c47 in testing::UnitTest::Run() /b/sanitizer-x86_64-linux-fast/build/llvm/utils/unittest/googletest/src/gtest.cc:4257
    #13 0x1a0dfba in RUN_ALL_TESTS /b/sanitizer-x86_64-linux-fast/build/llvm/utils/unittest/googletest/include/gtest/gtest.h:2233:46
    #14 0x1a0dfba in main /b/sanitizer-x86_64-linux-fast/build/llvm/utils/unittest/UnitTestMain/TestMain.cpp:50
    #15 0x7f2081c412e0 in __libc_start_main (/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libc.so.6+0x202e0)
    #16 0x4dff49 in _start (/b/sanitizer-x86_64-linux-fast/build/llvm_build_msan/unittests/IR/IRTests+0x4dff49)

SUMMARY: MemorySanitizer: use-of-uninitialized-value /b/sanitizer-x86_64-linux-fast/build/llvm/include/llvm/IR/User.h:79:5 in User
```

See http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/sanitizer-x86_64-linux-fast/builds/30222/steps/check-llvm%20msan/logs/stdio for more information.

llvm-svn: 355616
connorkuehl pushed a commit that referenced this issue Jul 6, 2019
This fixes a failing testcase on Fedora 30 x86_64 (regression Fedora 29->30):

PASS:
./bin/lldb ./lldb-test-build.noindex/functionalities/unwind/noreturn/TestNoreturnUnwind.test_dwarf/a.out -o 'settings set symbols.enable-external-lookup false' -o r -o bt -o quit
  * frame #0: 0x00007ffff7aa6e75 libc.so.6`__GI_raise + 325
    frame llvm#1: 0x00007ffff7a91895 libc.so.6`__GI_abort + 295
    frame #2: 0x0000000000401140 a.out`func_c at main.c:12:2
    frame #3: 0x000000000040113a a.out`func_b at main.c:18:2
    frame #4: 0x0000000000401134 a.out`func_a at main.c:26:2
    frame #5: 0x000000000040112e a.out`main(argc=<unavailable>, argv=<unavailable>) at main.c:32:2
    frame #6: 0x00007ffff7a92f33 libc.so.6`__libc_start_main + 243
    frame #7: 0x000000000040106e a.out`_start + 46

vs.

FAIL - unrecognized abort() function:
./bin/lldb ./lldb-test-build.noindex/functionalities/unwind/noreturn/TestNoreturnUnwind.test_dwarf/a.out -o 'settings set symbols.enable-external-lookup false' -o r -o bt -o quit
  * frame #0: 0x00007ffff7aa6e75 libc.so.6`.annobin_raise.c + 325
    frame llvm#1: 0x00007ffff7a91895 libc.so.6`.annobin_loadmsgcat.c_end.unlikely + 295
    frame #2: 0x0000000000401140 a.out`func_c at main.c:12:2
    frame #3: 0x000000000040113a a.out`func_b at main.c:18:2
    frame #4: 0x0000000000401134 a.out`func_a at main.c:26:2
    frame #5: 0x000000000040112e a.out`main(argc=<unavailable>, argv=<unavailable>) at main.c:32:2
    frame #6: 0x00007ffff7a92f33 libc.so.6`.annobin_libc_start.c + 243
    frame #7: 0x000000000040106e a.out`.annobin_init.c.hot + 46

The extra ELF symbols are there due to Annobin (I did not investigate why this problem happened specifically since F-30 and not since F-28).
It is due to:

Symbol table '.dynsym' contains 2361 entries:
Valu e          Size Type   Bind   Vis     Name
0000000000022769   5 FUNC   LOCAL  DEFAULT _nl_load_domain.cold
000000000002276e   0 NOTYPE LOCAL  HIDDEN  .annobin_abort.c.unlikely
...
000000000002276e   0 NOTYPE LOCAL  HIDDEN  .annobin_loadmsgcat.c_end.unlikely
...
000000000002276e   0 NOTYPE LOCAL  HIDDEN  .annobin_textdomain.c_end.unlikely
000000000002276e 548 FUNC   GLOBAL DEFAULT abort
000000000002276e 548 FUNC   GLOBAL DEFAULT abort@@GLIBC_2.2.5
000000000002276e 548 FUNC   LOCAL  DEFAULT __GI_abort
0000000000022992   0 NOTYPE LOCAL  HIDDEN  .annobin_abort.c_end.unlikely

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D63540

llvm-svn: 364773
connorkuehl pushed a commit that referenced this issue Jul 6, 2019
against CXX compiler ID instead of CRT test ID.

llvm-svn: 364975
connorkuehl pushed a commit that referenced this issue Jul 20, 2019
If a core file has an EFI version string which includes a UUID
(similar to what it returns for the kdp KDP_KERNELVERSION packet)
in the LC_IDENT or LC_NOTE 'kern ver str' load command.  In that
case, we should try to find the binary and dSYM for the UUID
listed.  The dSYM may have python code which knows how to relocate
the binary to the correct address in lldb's target section load
list and loads other ancillary binaries.

The test case is a little involved,

1. it compiles an inferior hello world apple (a.out),
2. it compiles a program which can create a corefile manually
   with a specific binary's UUID encoded in it,
3. it gets the UUID of the a.out binary,
4. it creates a shell script, dsym-for-uuid.sh, which will
   return the full path to the a.out + a.out.dSYM when called
   with teh correct UUID,
5. it sets the LLDB_APPLE_DSYMFORUUID_EXECUTABLE env var before
   creating the lldb target, to point to this dsym-for-uuid.sh,
6. runs the create-corefile binary we compiled in step #2,
7. loads the corefile from step #6 into lldb,
8. verifies that lldb loaded a.out by reading the LC_NOTE
   load command from the corefile, calling dsym-for-uuid.sh with
   that UUID, got back the path to a.out and loaded it.

whew!

<rdar://problem/47562911>

llvm-svn: 366378
connorkuehl pushed a commit that referenced this issue Jul 20, 2019
Summary:
Change the scan algorithm to use only power-of-two shifts (1, 2, 4, 8,
16, 32) instead of starting off shifting by 1, 2 and 3 and then doing
a 3-way ADD, because:

1. It simplifies the compiler a little.
2. It minimizes vgpr pressure because each instruction is now of the
   form vn = vn + vn << c.
3. It is more friendly to the DPP combiner, which currently can't
   combine into an ADD3 instruction.

Because of #2 and #3 the end result is improved from this:

  v_add_u32_dpp v4, v3, v3  row_shr:1 row_mask:0xf bank_mask:0xf bound_ctrl:0
  v_mov_b32_dpp v5, v3  row_shr:2 row_mask:0xf bank_mask:0xf
  v_mov_b32_dpp v1, v3  row_shr:3 row_mask:0xf bank_mask:0xf
  v_add3_u32 v1, v4, v5, v1
  s_nop 1
  v_add_u32_dpp v1, v1, v1  row_shr:4 row_mask:0xf bank_mask:0xe
  s_nop 1
  v_add_u32_dpp v1, v1, v1  row_shr:8 row_mask:0xf bank_mask:0xc
  s_nop 1
  v_add_u32_dpp v1, v1, v1  row_bcast:15 row_mask:0xa bank_mask:0xf
  s_nop 1
  v_add_u32_dpp v1, v1, v1  row_bcast:31 row_mask:0xc bank_mask:0xf

To this:

  v_add_u32_dpp v1, v1, v1  row_shr:1 row_mask:0xf bank_mask:0xf bound_ctrl:0
  s_nop 1
  v_add_u32_dpp v1, v1, v1  row_shr:2 row_mask:0xf bank_mask:0xf bound_ctrl:0
  s_nop 1
  v_add_u32_dpp v1, v1, v1  row_shr:4 row_mask:0xf bank_mask:0xe
  s_nop 1
  v_add_u32_dpp v1, v1, v1  row_shr:8 row_mask:0xf bank_mask:0xc
  s_nop 1
  v_add_u32_dpp v1, v1, v1  row_bcast:15 row_mask:0xa bank_mask:0xf
  s_nop 1
  v_add_u32_dpp v1, v1, v1  row_bcast:31 row_mask:0xc bank_mask:0xf

I.e. two fewer computational instructions, one extra nop where we could
schedule something else.

Reviewers: arsenm, sheredom, critson, rampitec, vpykhtin

Subscribers: kzhuravl, jvesely, wdng, nhaehnle, yaxunl, dstuttard, tpr, t-tye, hiraditya, llvm-commits

Tags: #llvm

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D64411

llvm-svn: 366543
connorkuehl pushed a commit that referenced this issue Jul 27, 2019
Summary:
Every time PrettyPrinter::printInst is called, stdout is flushed and it makes llvm-objdump slow. This patches adds a string
buffer to prevent stdout from being flushed.

Benchmark results (./llvm-objdump-master: without this patch,  ./bin/llvm-objcopy: with this patch):

  $ hyperfine --warmup 10 './llvm-objdump-master -d ./bin/llvm-objcopy' './bin/llvm-objdump -d ./bin/llvm-objcopy'
  Benchmark llvm#1: ./llvm-objdump-master -d ./bin/llvm-objcopy
    Time (mean ± σ):      2.230 s ±  0.050 s    [User: 1.533 s, System: 0.682 s]
    Range (min … max):    2.115 s …  2.278 s    10 runs

  Benchmark #2: ./bin/llvm-objdump -d ./bin/llvm-objcopy
    Time (mean ± σ):     386.4 ms ±  13.0 ms    [User: 376.6 ms, System: 6.1 ms]
    Range (min … max):   366.1 ms … 407.0 ms    10 runs

  Summary
    './bin/llvm-objdump -d ./bin/llvm-objcopy' ran
      5.77 ± 0.23 times faster than './llvm-objdump-master -d ./bin/llvm-objcopy'

Reviewers: alexshap, Bigcheese, jhenderson, rupprecht, grimar, MaskRay

Reviewed By: jhenderson, MaskRay

Subscribers: dexonsmith, jhenderson, javed.absar, kristof.beyls, rupprecht, llvm-commits

Tags: #llvm

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D64969

llvm-svn: 366984
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

5 participants