2019-08-09 06:16:33 +08:00
|
|
|
|
# Bugpoint Redesign
|
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Diego Treviño (diegotf@google.com)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Date: 2019-06-05
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Status: Draft
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Introduction
|
|
|
|
|
|
As use of bugpoint has grown several areas of improvement have been identified
|
|
|
|
|
|
through years of use: confusing to use, slow, it doesn’t always produce high
|
|
|
|
|
|
quality test cases, etc. This document proposes a new approach with a narrower
|
|
|
|
|
|
focus: minimization of IR test cases.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Proposed New Design
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Narrow focus: test-case reduction
|
|
|
|
|
|
The main focus will be a code reduction strategy to obtain much smaller test
|
|
|
|
|
|
cases that still have the same property as the original one. This will be done
|
|
|
|
|
|
via classic delta debugging and by adding some IR-specific reductions (e.g.
|
|
|
|
|
|
replacing globals, removing unused instructions, etc), similar to what
|
|
|
|
|
|
already exists, but with more in-depth minimization.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Granted, if the community differs on this proposal, the legacy code could still
|
|
|
|
|
|
be present in the tool, but with the caveat of still being documented and
|
|
|
|
|
|
designed towards delta reduction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Command-Line Options
|
|
|
|
|
|
We are proposing to reduce the plethora of bugpoint’s options to just two: an
|
|
|
|
|
|
interesting-ness test and the arguments for said test, similar to other delta
|
|
|
|
|
|
reduction tools such as CReduce, Delta, and Lithium; the tool should feel less
|
|
|
|
|
|
cluttered, and there should also be no uncertainty about how to operate it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The interesting-ness test that’s going to be run to reduce the code is given
|
|
|
|
|
|
by name:
|
|
|
|
|
|
`--test=<test_name>`
|
|
|
|
|
|
If a `--test` option is not given, the program exits; this option is similar
|
|
|
|
|
|
to bugpoint’s current `-compile-custom` option, which lets the user run a
|
|
|
|
|
|
custom script.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The interesting-ness test would be defined as a script that returns 0 when the
|
|
|
|
|
|
IR achieves a user-defined behaviour (e.g. failure to compile on clang) and a
|
|
|
|
|
|
nonzero value when otherwise. Leaving the user the freedom to determine what is
|
|
|
|
|
|
and isn’t interesting to the tool, and thus, streamlining the process of
|
|
|
|
|
|
reducing a test-case.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If the test accepts any arguments (excluding the input ll/bc file), they are
|
|
|
|
|
|
given via the following flag:
|
|
|
|
|
|
`--test_args=<test_arguments>`
|
|
|
|
|
|
If unspecified, the test is run as given. It’s worth noting that the input file
|
|
|
|
|
|
would be passed as a parameter to the test, similar how `-compile-custom`
|
|
|
|
|
|
currently operates.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Implementation
|
|
|
|
|
|
The tool would behave similar to CReduce’s functionality in that it would have a
|
|
|
|
|
|
list of passes that try to minimize the given test-case. We should be able to
|
|
|
|
|
|
modularize the tool’s behavior, as well as making it easier to maintain and
|
|
|
|
|
|
expand.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The first version of this redesign would try to:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* Discard functions, instructions and metadata that don’t influence the
|
|
|
|
|
|
interesting-ness test
|
|
|
|
|
|
* Remove unused parameters from functions
|
|
|
|
|
|
* Eliminate unvisited conditional paths
|
|
|
|
|
|
* Rename variables to more regular ones (such as “a”, “b”, “c”, etc.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Once these passes are implemented, more meaningful reductions (such as type
|
|
|
|
|
|
reduction) would be added to the tool, to even further reduce IR.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Background on historical bugpoint issues
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Root Cause Analysis
|
|
|
|
|
|
Presently, bugpoint takes a long time to find the source problem in a given IR
|
|
|
|
|
|
file, mainly due to the fact that it tries to debug the input by running
|
|
|
|
|
|
various strategies to classify the bug, which in turn run multiple optimizer
|
|
|
|
|
|
and compilation passes over the input, taking up a lot of time. Furthermore,
|
|
|
|
|
|
when the IR crashes, it tries to reduce it by performing some sub-optimal
|
|
|
|
|
|
passes (e.g. a lot of unreachable blocks), and sometimes even fails to minimize
|
|
|
|
|
|
at all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### "Quirky" Interface
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bugpoint’s current interface overwhelms and confuses the user, the help screen
|
2019-08-10 05:48:47 +08:00
|
|
|
|
alone ends up confusing rather providing guidance. And, not only are there
|
|
|
|
|
|
numerous features and options, but some of them also work in unexpected ways
|
|
|
|
|
|
and most of the time the user ends up using a custom script. Pruning and
|
|
|
|
|
|
simplifying the interface will be worth considering in order to make the tool
|
|
|
|
|
|
more useful in the general case and easier to maintain.
|
