Commit Graph

1 Commits

Author SHA1 Message Date
Taewook Oh 7646e77969 [ThinLTO] Add funtions in callees metadata to CallGraphEdges
Summary:
If there's a callees metadata attached to the indirect call instruction, add CallGraphEdges to the callees mentioned in the metadata when computing FunctionSummary.

* Why this is necessary:
Consider following code example:
```
(foo.c)
static int f1(int x) {...}
static int f2(int x);
static int (*fptr)(int) = f2;
static int f2(int x) {
  if (x) fptr=f1; return f1(x);
}
int foo(int x) {
  (*fptr)(x); // !callees metadata of !{i32 (i32)* @f1, i32 (i32)* @f2} would be attached to this call.
}

(bar.c)
int bar(int x) {
  return foo(x);
}
```

At LTO time when `foo.o` is imported into `bar.o`, function `foo` might be inlined into `bar` and PGO-guided indirect call promotion will run after that. If the profile data tells that the promotion of `@f1` or `@f2` is beneficial, the optimizer will check if the "promoted" `@f1` or `@f2` (such as `@f1.llvm.0` or `@f2.llvm.0`) is available. Without this patch, importing `!callees` metadata would only add promoted declarations of `@f1` and `@f2` to the `bar.o`, but still the optimizer will assume that the function is available and perform the promotion. The result of that is link failure with `undefined reference to @f1.llvm.0`.

This patch fixes this problem by adding callees in the `!callees` metadata to CallGraphEdges so that their definition would be properly imported into.

One may ask that there already is a logic to add indirect call promotion targets to be added to CallGraphEdges. However, if profile data says "indirect call promotion is only beneficial under a certain inline context", the logic wouldn't work. In the code example above, if profile data is like
```
bar:1000000:100000
  1:100000
    1: foo:100000
        1: 100000 f1:100000
```
, Computing FunctionSummary for `foo.o` wouldn't add `foo->f1` to CallGraphEdges. (Also, it is at least "possible" that one can provide profile data to only link step but not to compilation step).

Reviewers: tejohnson, mehdi_amini, pcc

Reviewed By: tejohnson

Subscribers: inglorion, eraman, llvm-commits

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D44399

llvm-svn: 327358
2018-03-13 04:26:58 +00:00