[llvm-dev] Prevent LLVM optimizations from erasing unused basic blocks (original) (raw)

Friedman, Eli via llvm-dev llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Tue Oct 9 14:26:45 PDT 2018

On 10/9/2018 1:50 PM, Gleb Popov wrote:

On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 11:42 PM Friedman, Eli <efriedma at codeaurora.org_ _<mailto:efriedma at codeaurora.org>> wrote: On 10/9/2018 1:03 PM, Gleb Popov wrote:

On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 10:39 PM Friedman, Eli <efriedma at codeaurora.org <mailto:efriedma at codeaurora.org>> wrote: On 10/9/2018 11:58 AM, Gleb Popov wrote:

On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 9:39 PM Friedman, Eli <efriedma at codeaurora.org <mailto:efriedma at codeaurora.org>> wrote: On 10/9/2018 11:31 AM, Gleb Popov via llvm-dev wrote: > Hello LLVM Devs. > > In my compiler I attach some arbitrary data to functions by creating > BBs with inline assembly. However, these blocks are "unused" from LLVM > point of view and get erased from the function. > > To counter that I started adding checks for conditions that are > guaranteed to be true or false. I ended up with calling > @llvm.returnaddress(i32 0) intrinsic and comparing the result with 0. > It worked well until in one function I had two such calls and SROA > replaced one of checks with constant 1 and erased the BB. > > I should probably stop trying to fool LLVM and "do it right", but > don't have any idea how. Note that I can't use global variables for a > reason, so the data has to be encoded in a BB using inline assembly. > All I need is just prevent optimizations from erasing it. A reachable inline asm won't be erased if LLVM thinks it has some side-effect.  The simplest way to do this is the "sideeffect" marking (in C++, it's a parameter to InlineAsm::get()).  See http://llvm.org/docs/LangRef.html#inline-assembler-expressions . The problem is exactly reachability. Here is a simple example: define void @foo() { entry: ... ret void data: call void asm sideeffect inteldialect ".byte 0xB2", "{dirflag},{fpsr},~{flags}"() call void asm sideeffect inteldialect ".byte 0xB9", "{dirflag},{fpsr},~{flags}"() ... } To make "data" reachable I change entry's terminator to br %tobool, label %exit, label %data, where %tobool is a result of icmp eq that is always true. However, I can't come up with such a condition that didn't get erased by SROA. Even if you manage to trick LLVM into emitting the inline asm, it won't be in a predictable location in the emitted assembly; some LLVM transforms will rearrange the code in a function. Won't @llvm.returnaddress() always get me correct location of my inline asm block? I'm very confused... how could you possibly use @llvm.returnaddress to return the address of a block of code that's never executed? Sorry, it is a typo. I meant blockaddress constant, not @llvm.returnaddress intrinsic.

Oh, that makes more sense.  Still, there isn't any rule that prohibits LLVM from inserting code there; you're basically just hoping to get lucky.  (blockaddress is designed to be used with indirectbr; any other use is probably wrong.)

And given you're explicitly storing the address of the data anyway, I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish by embedding the data using inline asm; there are simpler ways to ensure your data is placed in the same section.

-Eli

-- Employee of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project

-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20181009/61c04c95/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the llvm-dev mailing list