From: Jan Hubicka <hubicka@ucw.cz>
To: Richard Biener <rguenther@suse.de>
Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tree-optimization/109304 - properly handle instrumented aliases
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2023 21:12:43 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ZDmlq5Sc0X35//HJ@kam.mff.cuni.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <nycvar.YFH.7.77.849.2304110810080.4466@jbgna.fhfr.qr>
> On Tue, 4 Apr 2023, Jan Hubicka wrote:
>
> > > On Tue, 28 Mar 2023, Richard Biener wrote:
> > >
> > > > When adjusting calls to reflect instrumentation we failed to handle
> > > > calls to aliases since they appear to have no body. Instead resort
> > > > to symtab node availability. The patch also avoids touching
> > > > internal function calls in a more obvious way (builtins might
> > > > have a body available).
> > > >
> > > > profiledbootstrap & regtest running on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu.
> > > >
> > > > Honza - does this look OK?
> > > > PR tree-optimization/109304
> > > > * tree-profile.cc (tree_profiling): Use symtab node
> > > > availability to decide whether to skip adjusting calls.
> > > > Do not adjust calls to internal functions.
> > > > @@ -842,12 +842,15 @@ tree_profiling (void)
> > > > for (gsi = gsi_start_bb (bb); !gsi_end_p (gsi); gsi_next (&gsi))
> > > > {
> > > > gcall *call = dyn_cast <gcall *> (gsi_stmt (gsi));
> > > > - if (!call)
> > > > + if (!call || gimple_call_internal_p (call))
> > > > continue;
> > > >
> > > > /* We do not clear pure/const on decls without body. */
> > > > tree fndecl = gimple_call_fndecl (call);
> > > > - if (fndecl && !gimple_has_body_p (fndecl))
> > > > + cgraph_node *callee;
> > > > + if (fndecl
> > > > + && (callee = cgraph_node::get (fndecl))
> > > > + && callee->get_availability (node) == AVAIL_NOT_AVAILABLE)
> >
> > As discussed earlier, the testcase I posted can be adjusted to put the
> > const declared wrapper into another translation unit, so I think we will
> > need to drop the visibility check completely. But as discussed, it is
> > wrong code issue, but not a regression, so we may go with the
> > availability check as you suggest. So the patch is OK.
> >
> >
> > I wonder if we do not want to drop it everywhere (as we plan for next
> > stage1 anyway). I think similar ICE as in the PR can be produced with
> > LTO. In normal situation declaration merging will do the right thing:
> > If you have unit A calling const foo externally, it won't get processed
> > by the code above. However unit B declaring foo will get it downgraded
> > to non-const.
> >
> > Now at WPA time we will read both A and B and in declaration merging B's
> > definition will prevail. This won't happen if lto_symtab_merge_p
> > returns false which can probably be triggered by adding warning/error
> > attribute to B's declaration but not to A's.
> >
> > It is however really side case and I am worried about dropping
> > pure/const from builtin declarations...
>
> Yeah, that's what I'm worried about as well. I guess we'd need to
> do the demotion to non-const/pure at WPA time and have a flag
> in the cgraph node indicating instrument_add_{read,write}? But
> then how should we deal with C++ comdats instrumented in one TU
> but not in another? Does this mean we should do instrumentation
> at IPA time instead of as small IPA pass before IPA?
I do not think LTO is of any help here. You can allways call non-LTO
const function from outer-world and that function can will end up
calling back to instrumented const function in your unit which
effectively makes the extenral const function non-const.
>
> That said, when there's a definition of say strlen in a TU and
> that's instrumented we do want to drop pure from calls but if
> not then we shouldn't worry.
>
> Without LTO we'd still run into coverage issues but at least
> with LTO we shouldn't ICE?
I am not sure I see your point here...
We could avoid demoting builtins to avoid ICEs and have coverage
mismathces, but how LTO makes difference?
Honza
>
> Richard.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-04-14 19:12 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-03-31 7:20 Richard Biener
2023-04-03 23:21 ` Jan Hubicka
2023-04-04 8:26 ` Jakub Jelinek
2023-04-04 10:14 ` Jan Hubicka
2023-04-11 8:21 ` Richard Biener
2023-04-11 8:15 ` Richard Biener
2023-04-14 19:12 ` Jan Hubicka [this message]
2023-04-17 6:35 ` Richard Biener
2023-04-18 16:18 ` Jan Hubicka
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2023-03-28 8:06 Richard Biener
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=ZDmlq5Sc0X35//HJ@kam.mff.cuni.cz \
--to=hubicka@ucw.cz \
--cc=gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=rguenther@suse.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).