[llvm-dev] [RFC] DebugInfo: A different way of specifying variable locations post-isel (original) (raw)

Vedant Kumar via llvm-dev llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Wed Feb 26 10:49:00 PST 2020

On Feb 25, 2020, at 10:28 AM, Jeremy Morse via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:

Hi Vedant, thanks for the detailed response, On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 7:23 AM Vedant Kumar <vedantkumar at apple.com> wrote:

Finally, being forced to always specify both the machine location and the program location at the same time (in a single DBGVALUE) introduces un-necessary burdens. In MachineSink, when we sink between blocks an instruction that defines a vreg, we chose to sink DBGVALUE instructions referring to that vreg too to avoid losing the variable location. This un-necessarily risks re-ordering assignments,

So under the proposed scheme, would the dbg value not be sunk? Ah, so then you’d get the dbg use before def scenario, which you argue has some nice properties below. Indeed -- I'm aware of previous efforts to suppress dbg-use-before-def in the past, but I'm not aware of why it's not supported (it does /feel/ wrong at the very least). Perhaps the reason why was because it couldn't be described post-regalloc. (As an aside, this would move us in the direction of making it easier to change LLVM-IR instructions, but harder to determine what a variable location is, through the middle stages of the compiler). I'd like to suggest that we can represent variable locations in the codegen backend / MIR with three things: * The instruction that defines the value of the variable, * The operand of that instruction into which the value is written, * The position in the instruction stream where the assignment of this value to the variable occurs

That's effectively modifying a machine location from being a {v,}reg, into being a "defining instruction" and operand. This is closer to the LLVM-IR form of a machine location, where the SSA Value and its computation are synonymous. Exactly how this is represented in-memory and in-printed-MIR I haven't thought a lot about; probably by attaching metadata to instructions and having DBGVALUE use a metadata operand rather than referring to a vreg. Specifying machine locations like this would have the following benefits: * Both DBGVALUEs and defining instructions are independent and can be moved within the function without loss of information, and without needing to consider so much context, * Likewise, vregs can be rewritten / merged / deleted without the need to update any debug metadata. Only instruction deletion / morphing would need some sort of change, For deletion, that makes sense, we might consider introducing an MI level salvageDI method to help with that. For replacement/morphing, wouldn’t MachineInstr::RAUW be able to update the new-style debug uses? I guess it would, on the assumption that a machineinstr having its operands changed doesn't actually change the value(s) that it computes. The three instruction scheduling passes would become significantly easier to deal with: they would only have to replace DBGVALUE instructions in the correct order, not worry about their operands. Various debug facilities in SimpleRegisterCoalescing, MachineSink, and large amounts of LiveDebugVariables would become redundant, as we wouldn't need to maintain a register location through optimisations. I view this as a very large potential upside. LiveDebugVariables is incredibly complex and is a huge compile-time bear. Defining away large chunks of its job would be really nice. Would this mean that an equivalence class in LiveDebugVariables would consist exclusively of UserValues referring to the same variable (as opposed to including UserValues that share a vreg as well)? It believe so -- although I can't say I have a complete understanding of LiveDebugVariables' equivalence classes. That aspect of an equivalence class could be replaced with the identity of the defining instruction instead, but, I think the interval-splitting that LiveDebugVariables does wouldn't be necessary any more and so computing equivalence wouldn't be necessary either.

This sounds really great.

How then do we translate this new kind of machine location into DWARF/CodeView variable locations, which need to know which register to look in? The answer is: LiveDebugValues [3]. We already perform a dataflow analysis in LiveDebugValues of where values "go" after they're defined: we can use that to take "defining instructions" and determine register / stack locations. We would need to track values from the defining instruction up to the DBGVALUE where that value becomes a variable location, after which it's no different from the LiveDebugValues analysis that we perform today. LiveDebugValues' ability to track values through stack spills and restores would become a critical feature (it isn't today), as we would no longer generate stack locations during register allocation. Do you expect that handling for the current and new-style DBGVALUEs could coexist in LiveDebugValues? Could that be done by e.g. introducing a new debug instr MI (DBGINSTRREF)? I believe it should be relatively straightforwards: we would have an additional kind of location-record (i.e. VarLoc) that, instead of identifying a variable, identified the instruction/operand that computed a value. Handling a DBGINSTRREF as you suggest would mean looking up such a VarLoc by instruction/operand to find its register, then creating a register location VarLoc for the variable as we do today. Propagating the location of an instruction/operand VarLoc would happen in exactly the same way as variable locations today, it's just following a value as it's moved around registers.

I see, so the required addition to LiveDebugValues is basically about reconstituting VarLocs from new-style debug values? And otherwise, the basic range extension algorithm is unchanged?

Limitations

The largest problem with this idea is that not all variable values are defined by instructions: PHIs are values that are defined by control flow. To deal with this pre-regalloc, we could move LiveDebugVariables to run before phi-elimination. I don’t really follow this. Are you suggesting stripping out debug values before phi elim, and replacing them after virtregrewrite? How would the re-inserted debug instrs refer to values produced by phis? My understanding is that the register allocation phase of LLVM starts there and ends after virtregrewriter, and it'd be legitimate to say "we do special things for these passes". After regalloc however, there would need to be some way of specifying a block and a register, where entry to the block defines a variable value in that register. This isn't pretty; but IMO is the representation closest to the truth. Oh, you answer this here. So LiveDebugVariables would need to figure out, for each debug-use-of-phi, 1) which block to put it in and 2) which register+variable gets defined. This is different enough from the new-style debug instr to potentially warrant its own instruction (DBGPHI?). Yes and no; I think 1) should be un-necessary, or at least not be difficult in any way. The DBGPHIs would refer to a block and register, identifying the PHIs value at a single program location, the start of the block where it is defined. This is (98% certain) easy to identify in virtregrewriter with a location query, and avoids considering live ranges and interval splitting. We wouldn't need to try and know where the PHI value is later in the block or in other blocks: the same LiveDebugValues mechanism as DBGINSTRREF would be able to determine the PHI values register location at the position of a later DBGPHI instruction. (Again, I've put little thought into how that would be represented in memory or MIR). I feel like this would be a better way of representing variable locations in the codegen backend; my fear is that this is a lot of work, and I don't know what appetite there is for change amongst other interested parties. Thus I'd be interested in any kind of feedback as to whether a) this is a good idea, b) whether this category of change is what people want, and c) whether this is seen as being achievable. Imho this is a good idea and I’d like to see something like this happen. For it to ”really happen” we (Apple) would probably need a way to transition to the new representation incrementally (e.g. to toggle a flag to get back the old representation). I’m not yet sure about what all that would really entail. That's great to hear! When you say toggling a flag, is that a flag for a whole compilation, or returning to the old representation at specific passes? I don't think it'd be too difficult to have two implementations in the codebase and pick one to use, switching between the two mid-flight is a lot harder of course.

I'm thinking of a flag for the whole compilation, like -Xclang . I don't think we'd need to switch between representations mid-flight.

Being able to introduce this change incrementally presents some challenges: while the way of representing variable locations described above is more expressive than the current way, converting between one and the other requires running the LiveDebugValues analysis, This sounds like you’re planning to change the existing DBGVALUE instruction. Have you considered keeping it — unmodified — and introducing new debug instructions for the new semantics? The migration story for that seems a lot simpler. I hadn't thought about keeping it; you're right, it'd be a lot easier (and a lot more testable) to do it that way. That also lines up with having a toggle flag to allow incremental transition. If we can delete large parts of live debug variables this will be worth it imho. But perhaps part of the plan here should include splitting up live debug values into smaller files to simplify it? Splitting up LiveDebugValues sounds like a good plan, entry value development has added a certain amount of complexity to it too. Thanks for the feedback! -- Thanks, Jeremy

LLVM Developers mailing list llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev

What about constants and memory locations? Good question, and something I've not done too much thinking about. As far as I'm aware, memory references today are all register based, with the DIExpression expressing any memory operations. That should translate to the proposed model naturally: memory locations would be instruction references with a suitable DIExpression qualifying the value.

For stack slots, I guess we'd mostly still rely on the MachineFunction side-table.

We do sometimes refer to stack locations using a register-based description, like:

DBG_VALUE $rsp, 0, ![[SVAR]], !DIExpression(DW_OP_constu, 8, DW_OP_minus, DW_OP_plus_uconst, 1)

Under the proposed new model, we could change this to a DBG_INSTR_REF pointing to the instruction which creates the memory location. I think this is how it's done in IR. An alternative might be to have the DBG_INSTR_REF point to the instruction that completes the store of the variable into the memory location. That doesn't sound as good to me. It doesn't seem like it'd be simple to work out the location from the instruction (e.g. if we're storing into an offset).

Constants are trickier; it's probably easiest to keep DBGVALUE instructions to describe constants. This shouldn't be limiting at all, as constant-valued locations aren't tied to specific program locations in the same way register locations are.

Seems reasonable to me.

vedant

More information about the llvm-dev mailing list