Basic block sections enables function sections implicitly, this is not needed
and is inefficient with "=list" option.
We had basic block sections enable function sections implicitly in clang. This
is particularly inefficient with "=list" option as it places functions that do
not have any basic block sections in separate sections. This causes unnecessary
object file overhead for large applications.
This patch disables this implicit behavior. It only creates function sections
for those functions that require basic block sections.
This patch is the second of two patches and this patch removes the implicit
enabling of function sections with basic block sections in clang.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D93876
On z/OS, the following error message is not matched correctly in lit tests.
```
EDC5129I No such file or directory.
```
This patch uses a lit config substitution to check for platform specific error messages.
Reviewed By: muiez, jhenderson
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D95246
On z/OS, the following error message is not matched correctly in lit tests. This patch updates the CHECK expression to match successfully.
```
EDC5129I No such file or directory.
```
Reviewed By: muiez
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D94239
Every basic block section symbol created by -fbasic-block-sections will contain
".__part." to know that this symbol corresponds to a basic block fragment of
the function.
This patch solves two problems:
a) Like D89617, we want function symbols with suffixes to be properly qualified
so that external tools like profile aggregators know exactly what this
symbol corresponds to.
b) The current basic block naming just adds a ".N" to the symbol name where N is
some integer. This collides with how clang creates __cxx_global_var_init.N.
clang creates these symbol names to call constructor functions and basic
block symbol naming should not use the same style.
Fixed all the test cases and added an extra test for __cxx_global_var_init
breakage.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D93082
With -fbasicblock-sections=, let the front-end handle the case where the file
doesnt exist. The driver only checks if the option syntax is right.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D89500
This patch introduces the new .bb_addr_map section feature which allows us to emit the bits needed for mapping binary profiles to basic blocks into a separate section.
The format of the emitted data is represented as follows. It includes a header for every function:
| Address of the function | -> 8 bytes (pointer size)
| Number of basic blocks in this function (>0) | -> ULEB128
The header is followed by a BB record for every basic block. These records are ordered in the same order as MachineBasicBlocks are placed in the function. Each BB Info is structured as follows:
| Offset of the basic block relative to function begin | -> ULEB128
| Binary size of the basic block | -> ULEB128
| BB metadata | -> ULEB128 [ MBB.isReturn() OR MBB.hasTailCall() << 1 OR MBB.isEHPad() << 2 ]
The new feature will replace the existing "BB labels" functionality with -basic-block-sections=labels.
The .bb_addr_map section scrubs the specially-encoded BB symbols from the binary and makes it friendly to profilers and debuggers.
Furthermore, the new feature reduces the binary size overhead from 70% bloat to only 12%.
For more information and results please refer to the RFC: https://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2020-July/143512.html
Reviewed By: MaskRay, snehasish
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D85408
This patch adds clang options:
-fbasic-block-sections={all,<filename>,labels,none} and
-funique-basic-block-section-names.
LLVM Support for basic block sections is already enabled.
+ -fbasic-block-sections={all, <file>, labels, none} : Enables/Disables basic
block sections for all or a subset of basic blocks. "labels" only enables
basic block symbols.
+ -funique-basic-block-section-names: Enables unique section names for
basic block sections, disabled by default.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D68049
Sriraman Tallam