On 31 July 2017 at 23:53, Prathamesh Kulkarni
<prathamesh.kulka...@linaro.org> wrote:
> On 23 May 2017 at 19:10, Prathamesh Kulkarni
> <prathamesh.kulka...@linaro.org> wrote:
>> On 19 May 2017 at 19:02, Jan Hubicka <hubi...@ucw.cz> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> * LTO and memory management
>>>> This is a general question about LTO and memory management.
>>>> IIUC the following sequence takes place during normal LTO:
>>>> LGEN: generate_summary, write_summary
>>>> WPA: read_summary, execute ipa passes, write_opt_summary
>>>>
>>>> So I assumed it was OK in LGEN to allocate return_callees_map in
>>>> generate_summary and free it in write_summary and during WPA, allocate
>>>> return_callees_map in read_summary and free it after execute (since
>>>> write_opt_summary does not require return_callees_map).
>>>>
>>>> However with fat LTO, it seems the sequence changes for LGEN with
>>>> execute phase takes place after write_summary. However since
>>>> return_callees_map is freed in pure_const_write_summary and
>>>> propagate_malloc() accesses it in execute stage, it results in
>>>> segmentation fault.
>>>>
>>>> To work around this, I am using the following hack in
>>>> pure_const_write_summary:
>>>> // FIXME: Do not free if -ffat-lto-objects is enabled.
>>>> if (!global_options.x_flag_fat_lto_objects)
>>>> free_return_callees_map ();
>>>> Is there a better approach for handling this ?
>>>
>>> I think most passes just do not free summaries with -flto. We probably want
>>> to fix it to make it possible to compile multiple units i.e. from plugin by
>>> adding release_summaries method...
>>> So I would say it is OK to do the same as others do and leak it with -flto.
>>>> diff --git a/gcc/ipa-pure-const.c b/gcc/ipa-pure-const.c
>>>> index e457166ea39..724c26e03f6 100644
>>>> --- a/gcc/ipa-pure-const.c
>>>> +++ b/gcc/ipa-pure-const.c
>>>> @@ -56,6 +56,7 @@ along with GCC; see the file COPYING3. If not see
>>>> #include "tree-scalar-evolution.h"
>>>> #include "intl.h"
>>>> #include "opts.h"
>>>> +#include "ssa.h"
>>>>
>>>> /* Lattice values for const and pure functions. Everything starts out
>>>> being const, then may drop to pure and then neither depending on
>>>> @@ -69,6 +70,15 @@ enum pure_const_state_e
>>>>
>>>> const char *pure_const_names[3] = {"const", "pure", "neither"};
>>>>
>>>> +enum malloc_state_e
>>>> +{
>>>> + PURE_CONST_MALLOC_TOP,
>>>> + PURE_CONST_MALLOC,
>>>> + PURE_CONST_MALLOC_BOTTOM
>>>> +};
>>>
>>> It took me a while to work out what PURE_CONST means here :)
>>> I would just call it something like STATE_MALLOC_TOP... or so.
>>> ipa_pure_const is outdated name from the time pass was doing only
>>> those two.
>>>> @@ -109,6 +121,10 @@ typedef struct funct_state_d * funct_state;
>>>>
>>>> static vec<funct_state> funct_state_vec;
>>>>
>>>> +/* A map from node to subset of callees. The subset contains those callees
>>>> + * whose return-value is returned by the node. */
>>>> +static hash_map< cgraph_node *, vec<cgraph_node *>* > *return_callees_map;
>>>> +
>>>
>>> Hehe, a special case of return jump function. We ought to support those
>>> more generally.
>>> How do you keep it up to date over callgraph changes?
>>>> @@ -921,6 +1055,23 @@ end:
>>>> if (TREE_NOTHROW (decl))
>>>> l->can_throw = false;
>>>>
>>>> + if (ipa)
>>>> + {
>>>> + vec<cgraph_node *> v = vNULL;
>>>> + l->malloc_state = PURE_CONST_MALLOC_BOTTOM;
>>>> + if (DECL_IS_MALLOC (decl))
>>>> + l->malloc_state = PURE_CONST_MALLOC;
>>>> + else if (malloc_candidate_p (DECL_STRUCT_FUNCTION (decl), v))
>>>> + {
>>>> + l->malloc_state = PURE_CONST_MALLOC_TOP;
>>>> + vec<cgraph_node *> *callees_p = new vec<cgraph_node *> (vNULL);
>>>> + for (unsigned i = 0; i < v.length (); ++i)
>>>> + callees_p->safe_push (v[i]);
>>>> + return_callees_map->put (fn, callees_p);
>>>> + }
>>>> + v.release ();
>>>> + }
>>>> +
>>>
>>> I would do non-ipa variant, too. I think most attributes can be detected
>>> that way
>>> as well.
>>>
>>> The patch generally makes sense to me. It would be nice to make it easier
>>> to write such
>>> a basic propagators across callgraph (perhaps adding a template doing the
>>> basic
>>> propagation logic). Also I think you need to solve the problem with keeping
>>> your
>>> summaries up to date across callgraph node removal and duplications.
>> Thanks for the suggestions, I will try to address them in a follow-up patch.
>> IIUC, I would need to modify ipa-pure-const cgraph hooks -
>> add_new_function, remove_node_data, duplicate_node_data
>> to keep return_callees_map up-to-date across callgraph node insertions
>> and removal ?
>>
>> Also, if instead of having a separate data-structure like return_callees_map,
>> should we rather have a flag within cgraph_edge, which marks that the
>> caller may return the value of the callee ?
> Hi,
> Sorry for the very late response. I have attached an updated version
> of the prototype patch,
> which adds a non-ipa variant, and keeps return_callees_map up-to-date
> across callgraph
> node insertions and removal. For the non-ipa variant,
> malloc_candidate_p() additionally checks
> that all the "return callees" have DECL_IS_MALLOC set to true.
> Bootstrapped+tested and LTO bootstrapped+tested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu.
> Does it look OK so far ?
>
> Um sorry for this silly question, but I don't really understand how
> does indirect call propagation
> work in ipa-pure-const ? For example consider propagation of nothrow
> attribute in following
> test-case:
>
> __attribute__((noinline, noclone, nothrow))
> int f1(int k) { return k; }
>
> __attribute__((noinline, noclone))
> static int foo(int (*p)(int))
> {
> return p(10);
> }
>
> __attribute__((noinline, noclone))
> int bar(void)
> {
> return foo(f1);
> }
>
> Shouldn't foo and bar be also marked as nothrow ?
> Since foo indirectly calls f1 which is nothrow and bar only calls foo ?
> The local-pure-const2 dump shows function is locally throwing for
> "foo" and "bar".
>
> Um, I was wondering how to get "points-to" analysis for function-pointers,
> to get list of callees that may be indirectly called from that
> function pointer ?
> In the patch I just set node to bottom if it contains indirect calls
> which is far from ideal :(
> I would be much grateful for suggestions on how to handle indirect calls.
> Thanks!
ping https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-07/msg02063.html
Thanks,
Prathamesh
>
> Regards,
> Prathamesh
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Prathamesh
>>>
>>> Honza
