Original commit message: "
Original commit message:"
The current infrastructure in lib/Interpreter has a tool, clang-repl, very
similar to clang-interpreter which also allows incremental compilation.
This patch moves clang-interpreter as a test case and drops it as conditionally
built example as we already have clang-repl in place.
Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D107049
"
This patch also ignores ppc due to missing weak symbol for __gxx_personality_v0
which may be a feature request for the jit infrastructure. Also, adds a missing
build system dependency to the orc jit.
"
Additionally, this patch defines a custom exception type and thus avoids the
requirement to include header <exception>, making it easier to deploy across
systems without standard location of the c++ headers.
Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D107049
Original commit message:"
The current infrastructure in lib/Interpreter has a tool, clang-repl, very
similar to clang-interpreter which also allows incremental compilation.
This patch moves clang-interpreter as a test case and drops it as conditionally
built example as we already have clang-repl in place.
Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D107049
"
This patch also ignores ppc due to missing weak symbol for __gxx_personality_v0
which may be a feature request for the jit infrastructure. Also, adds a missing
build system dependency to the orc jit.
The current infrastructure in lib/Interpreter has a tool, clang-repl, very
similar to clang-interpreter which also allows incremental compilation.
This patch moves clang-interpreter as a test case and drops it as conditionally
built example as we already have clang-repl in place.
Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D107049
Original commit message:
[clang-repl] Implement partial translation units and error recovery.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D96033 contained a discussion regarding efficient
modeling of error recovery. @rjmccall has outlined the key ideas:
Conceptually, we can split the translation unit into a sequence of partial
translation units (PTUs). Every declaration will be associated with a unique PTU
that owns it.
The first key insight here is that the owning PTU isn't always the "active"
(most recent) PTU, and it isn't always the PTU that the declaration
"comes from". A new declaration (that isn't a redeclaration or specialization of
anything) does belong to the active PTU. A template specialization, however,
belongs to the most recent PTU of all the declarations in its signature - mostly
that means that it can be pulled into a more recent PTU by its template
arguments.
The second key insight is that processing a PTU might extend an earlier PTU.
Rolling back the later PTU shouldn't throw that extension away. For example, if
the second PTU defines a template, and the third PTU requires that template to
be instantiated at float, that template specialization is still part of the
second PTU. Similarly, if the fifth PTU uses an inline function belonging to the
fourth, that definition still belongs to the fourth. When we go to emit code in
a new PTU, we map each declaration we have to emit back to its owning PTU and
emit it in a new module for just the extensions to that PTU. We keep track of
all the modules we've emitted for a PTU so that we can unload them all if we
decide to roll it back.
Most declarations/definitions will only refer to entities from the same or
earlier PTUs. However, it is possible (primarily by defining a
previously-declared entity, but also through templates or ADL) for an entity
that belongs to one PTU to refer to something from a later PTU. We will have to
keep track of this and prevent unwinding to later PTU when we recognize it.
Fortunately, this should be very rare; and crucially, we don't have to do the
bookkeeping for this if we've only got one PTU, e.g. in normal compilation.
Otherwise, PTUs after the first just need to record enough metadata to be able
to revert any changes they've made to declarations belonging to earlier PTUs,
e.g. to redeclaration chains or template specialization lists.
It should even eventually be possible for PTUs to provide their own slab
allocators which can be thrown away as part of rolling back the PTU. We can
maintain a notion of the active allocator and allocate things like Stmt/Expr
nodes in it, temporarily changing it to the appropriate PTU whenever we go to do
something like instantiate a function template. More care will be required when
allocating declarations and types, though.
We would want the PTU to be efficiently recoverable from a Decl; I'm not sure
how best to do that. An easy option that would cover most declarations would be
to make multiple TranslationUnitDecls and parent the declarations appropriately,
but I don't think that's good enough for things like member function templates,
since an instantiation of that would still be parented by its original class.
Maybe we can work this into the DC chain somehow, like how lexical DCs are.
We add a different kind of translation unit `TU_Incremental` which is a
complete translation unit that we might nonetheless incrementally extend later.
Because it is complete (and we might want to generate code for it), we do
perform template instantiation, but because it might be extended later, we don't
warn if it declares or uses undefined internal-linkage symbols.
This patch teaches clang-repl how to recover from errors by disconnecting the
most recent PTU and update the primary PTU lookup tables. For instance:
```./clang-repl
clang-repl> int i = 12; error;
In file included from <<< inputs >>>:1:
input_line_0:1:13: error: C++ requires a type specifier for all declarations
int i = 12; error;
^
error: Parsing failed.
clang-repl> int i = 13; extern "C" int printf(const char*,...);
clang-repl> auto r1 = printf("i=%d\n", i);
i=13
clang-repl> quit
```
Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D104918
This reverts commit 6775fc6ffa.
It also reverts "[lldb] Fix compilation by adjusting to the new ASTContext signature."
This reverts commit 03a3f86071.
We see some failures on the lldb infrastructure, these changes might play a role
in it. Let's revert it now and see if the bots will become green.
Ref: https://reviews.llvm.org/D104918
https://reviews.llvm.org/D96033 contained a discussion regarding efficient
modeling of error recovery. @rjmccall has outlined the key ideas:
Conceptually, we can split the translation unit into a sequence of partial
translation units (PTUs). Every declaration will be associated with a unique PTU
that owns it.
The first key insight here is that the owning PTU isn't always the "active"
(most recent) PTU, and it isn't always the PTU that the declaration
"comes from". A new declaration (that isn't a redeclaration or specialization of
anything) does belong to the active PTU. A template specialization, however,
belongs to the most recent PTU of all the declarations in its signature - mostly
that means that it can be pulled into a more recent PTU by its template
arguments.
The second key insight is that processing a PTU might extend an earlier PTU.
Rolling back the later PTU shouldn't throw that extension away. For example, if
the second PTU defines a template, and the third PTU requires that template to
be instantiated at float, that template specialization is still part of the
second PTU. Similarly, if the fifth PTU uses an inline function belonging to the
fourth, that definition still belongs to the fourth. When we go to emit code in
a new PTU, we map each declaration we have to emit back to its owning PTU and
emit it in a new module for just the extensions to that PTU. We keep track of
all the modules we've emitted for a PTU so that we can unload them all if we
decide to roll it back.
Most declarations/definitions will only refer to entities from the same or
earlier PTUs. However, it is possible (primarily by defining a
previously-declared entity, but also through templates or ADL) for an entity
that belongs to one PTU to refer to something from a later PTU. We will have to
keep track of this and prevent unwinding to later PTU when we recognize it.
Fortunately, this should be very rare; and crucially, we don't have to do the
bookkeeping for this if we've only got one PTU, e.g. in normal compilation.
Otherwise, PTUs after the first just need to record enough metadata to be able
to revert any changes they've made to declarations belonging to earlier PTUs,
e.g. to redeclaration chains or template specialization lists.
It should even eventually be possible for PTUs to provide their own slab
allocators which can be thrown away as part of rolling back the PTU. We can
maintain a notion of the active allocator and allocate things like Stmt/Expr
nodes in it, temporarily changing it to the appropriate PTU whenever we go to do
something like instantiate a function template. More care will be required when
allocating declarations and types, though.
We would want the PTU to be efficiently recoverable from a Decl; I'm not sure
how best to do that. An easy option that would cover most declarations would be
to make multiple TranslationUnitDecls and parent the declarations appropriately,
but I don't think that's good enough for things like member function templates,
since an instantiation of that would still be parented by its original class.
Maybe we can work this into the DC chain somehow, like how lexical DCs are.
We add a different kind of translation unit `TU_Incremental` which is a
complete translation unit that we might nonetheless incrementally extend later.
Because it is complete (and we might want to generate code for it), we do
perform template instantiation, but because it might be extended later, we don't
warn if it declares or uses undefined internal-linkage symbols.
This patch teaches clang-repl how to recover from errors by disconnecting the
most recent PTU and update the primary PTU lookup tables. For instance:
```./clang-repl
clang-repl> int i = 12; error;
In file included from <<< inputs >>>:1:
input_line_0:1:13: error: C++ requires a type specifier for all declarations
int i = 12; error;
^
error: Parsing failed.
clang-repl> int i = 13; extern "C" int printf(const char*,...);
clang-repl> auto r1 = printf("i=%d\n", i);
i=13
clang-repl> quit
```
Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D104918
Original commit message:
In http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2020-July/143257.html we have
mentioned our plans to make some of the incremental compilation facilities
available in llvm mainline.
This patch proposes a minimal version of a repl, clang-repl, which enables
interpreter-like interaction for C++. For instance:
./bin/clang-repl
clang-repl> int i = 42;
clang-repl> extern "C" int printf(const char*,...);
clang-repl> auto r1 = printf("i=%d\n", i);
i=42
clang-repl> quit
The patch allows very limited functionality, for example, it crashes on invalid
C++. The design of the proposed patch follows closely the design of cling. The
idea is to gather feedback and gradually evolve both clang-repl and cling to
what the community agrees upon.
The IncrementalParser class is responsible for driving the clang parser and
codegen and allows the compiler infrastructure to process more than one input.
Every input adds to the “ever-growing” translation unit. That model is enabled
by an IncrementalAction which prevents teardown when HandleTranslationUnit.
The IncrementalExecutor class hides some of the underlying implementation
details of the concrete JIT infrastructure. It exposes the minimal set of
functionality required by our incremental compiler/interpreter.
The Transaction class keeps track of the AST and the LLVM IR for each
incremental input. That tracking information will be later used to implement
error recovery.
The Interpreter class orchestrates the IncrementalParser and the
IncrementalExecutor to model interpreter-like behavior. It provides the public
API which can be used (in future) when using the interpreter library.
Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D96033
This reverts commit 44a4000181.
We are seeing build failures due to missing dependency to libSupport and
CMake Error at tools/clang/tools/clang-repl/cmake_install.cmake
file INSTALL cannot find
In http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2020-July/143257.html we have
mentioned our plans to make some of the incremental compilation facilities
available in llvm mainline.
This patch proposes a minimal version of a repl, clang-repl, which enables
interpreter-like interaction for C++. For instance:
./bin/clang-repl
clang-repl> int i = 42;
clang-repl> extern "C" int printf(const char*,...);
clang-repl> auto r1 = printf("i=%d\n", i);
i=42
clang-repl> quit
The patch allows very limited functionality, for example, it crashes on invalid
C++. The design of the proposed patch follows closely the design of cling. The
idea is to gather feedback and gradually evolve both clang-repl and cling to
what the community agrees upon.
The IncrementalParser class is responsible for driving the clang parser and
codegen and allows the compiler infrastructure to process more than one input.
Every input adds to the “ever-growing” translation unit. That model is enabled
by an IncrementalAction which prevents teardown when HandleTranslationUnit.
The IncrementalExecutor class hides some of the underlying implementation
details of the concrete JIT infrastructure. It exposes the minimal set of
functionality required by our incremental compiler/interpreter.
The Transaction class keeps track of the AST and the LLVM IR for each
incremental input. That tracking information will be later used to implement
error recovery.
The Interpreter class orchestrates the IncrementalParser and the
IncrementalExecutor to model interpreter-like behavior. It provides the public
API which can be used (in future) when using the interpreter library.
Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D96033
Vassil Vassilev