04259cde15
Our implementation draws heavily from LLD-ELF's, which in turn delegates
its string deduplication to llvm-mc's StringTableBuilder. The messiness of
this diff is largely due to the fact that we've previously assumed that
all InputSections get concatenated together to form the output. This is
no longer true with CStringInputSections, which split their contents into
StringPieces. StringPieces are much more lightweight than InputSections,
which is important as we create a lot of them. They may also overlap in
the output, which makes it possible for strings to be tail-merged. In
fact, the initial version of this diff implemented tail merging, but
I've dropped it for reasons I'll explain later.
**Alignment Issues**
Mergeable cstring literals are found under the `__TEXT,__cstring`
section. In contrast to ELF, which puts strings that need different
alignments into different sections, clang's Mach-O backend puts them all
in one section. Strings that need to be aligned have the `.p2align`
directive emitted before them, which simply translates into zero padding
in the object file.
I *think* ld64 extracts the desired per-string alignment from this data
by preserving each string's offset from the last section-aligned
address. I'm not entirely certain since it doesn't seem consistent about
doing this; but perhaps this can be chalked up to cases where ld64 has
to deduplicate strings with different offset/alignment combos -- it
seems to pick one of their alignments to preserve. This doesn't seem
correct in general; we can in fact can induce ld64 to produce a crashing
binary just by linking in an additional object file that only contains
cstrings and no code. See PR50563 for details.
Moreover, this scheme seems rather inefficient: since unaligned and
aligned strings are all put in the same section, which has a single
alignment value, it doesn't seem possible to tell whether a given string
doesn't have any alignment requirements. Preserving offset+alignments
for strings that don't need it is wasteful.
In practice, the crashes seen so far seem to stem from x86_64 SIMD
operations on cstrings. X86_64 requires SIMD accesses to be
16-byte-aligned. So for now, I'm thinking of just aligning all strings
to 16 bytes on x86_64. This is indeed wasteful, but implementation-wise
it's simpler than preserving per-string alignment+offsets. It also
avoids the aforementioned crash after deduplication of
differently-aligned strings. Finally, the overhead is not huge: using
16-byte alignment (vs no alignment) is only a 0.5% size overhead when
linking chromium_framework.
With these alignment requirements, it doesn't make sense to attempt tail
merging -- most strings will not be eligible since their overlaps aren't
likely to start at a 16-byte boundary. Tail-merging (with alignment) for
chromium_framework only improves size by 0.3%.
It's worth noting that LLD-ELF only does tail merging at `-O2`. By
default (at `-O1`), it just deduplicates w/o tail merging. @thakis has
also mentioned that they saw it regress compressed size in some cases
and therefore turned it off. `ld64` does not seem to do tail merging at
all.
**Performance Numbers**
CString deduplication reduces chromium_framework from 250MB to 242MB, or
about a 3.2% reduction.
Numbers for linking chromium_framework on my 3.2 GHz 16-Core Intel Xeon W:
N Min Max Median Avg Stddev
x 20 3.91 4.03 3.935 3.95 0.034641016
+ 20 3.99 4.14 4.015 4.0365 0.0492336
Difference at 95.0% confidence
0.0865 +/- 0.027245
2.18987% +/- 0.689746%
(Student's t, pooled s = 0.0425673)
As expected, cstring merging incurs some non-trivial overhead.
When passing `--no-literal-merge`, it seems that performance is the
same, i.e. the refactoring in this diff didn't cost us.
N Min Max Median Avg Stddev
x 20 3.91 4.03 3.935 3.95 0.034641016
+ 20 3.89 4.02 3.935 3.9435 0.043197831
No difference proven at 95.0% confidence
Reviewed By: #lld-macho, gkm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D102964
|
||
|---|---|---|
| .github | ||
| clang | ||
| clang-tools-extra | ||
| compiler-rt | ||
| debuginfo-tests | ||
| flang | ||
| libc | ||
| libclc | ||
| libcxx | ||
| libcxxabi | ||
| libunwind | ||
| lld | ||
| lldb | ||
| llvm | ||
| mlir | ||
| openmp | ||
| parallel-libs | ||
| polly | ||
| pstl | ||
| runtimes | ||
| utils/arcanist | ||
| .arcconfig | ||
| .arclint | ||
| .clang-format | ||
| .clang-tidy | ||
| .git-blame-ignore-revs | ||
| .gitignore | ||
| .mailmap | ||
| CONTRIBUTING.md | ||
| README.md | ||
| SECURITY.md | ||
README.md
The LLVM Compiler Infrastructure
This directory and its sub-directories contain source code for LLVM, a toolkit for the construction of highly optimized compilers, optimizers, and run-time environments.
The README briefly describes how to get started with building LLVM. For more information on how to contribute to the LLVM project, please take a look at the Contributing to LLVM guide.
Getting Started with the LLVM System
Taken from https://llvm.org/docs/GettingStarted.html.
Overview
Welcome to the LLVM project!
The LLVM project has multiple components. The core of the project is itself called "LLVM". This contains all of the tools, libraries, and header files needed to process intermediate representations and convert them into object files. Tools include an assembler, disassembler, bitcode analyzer, and bitcode optimizer. It also contains basic regression tests.
C-like languages use the Clang front end. This component compiles C, C++, Objective-C, and Objective-C++ code into LLVM bitcode -- and from there into object files, using LLVM.
Other components include: the libc++ C++ standard library, the LLD linker, and more.
Getting the Source Code and Building LLVM
The LLVM Getting Started documentation may be out of date. The Clang Getting Started page might have more accurate information.
This is an example work-flow and configuration to get and build the LLVM source:
-
Checkout LLVM (including related sub-projects like Clang):
-
git clone https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project.git -
Or, on windows,
git clone --config core.autocrlf=false https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project.git
-
-
Configure and build LLVM and Clang:
-
cd llvm-project -
cmake -S llvm -B build -G <generator> [options]Some common build system generators are:
Ninja--- for generating Ninja build files. Most llvm developers use Ninja.Unix Makefiles--- for generating make-compatible parallel makefiles.Visual Studio--- for generating Visual Studio projects and solutions.Xcode--- for generating Xcode projects.
Some Common options:
-
-DLLVM_ENABLE_PROJECTS='...'--- semicolon-separated list of the LLVM sub-projects you'd like to additionally build. Can include any of: clang, clang-tools-extra, libcxx, libcxxabi, libunwind, lldb, compiler-rt, lld, polly, or debuginfo-tests.For example, to build LLVM, Clang, libcxx, and libcxxabi, use
-DLLVM_ENABLE_PROJECTS="clang;libcxx;libcxxabi". -
-DCMAKE_INSTALL_PREFIX=directory--- Specify for directory the full path name of where you want the LLVM tools and libraries to be installed (default/usr/local). -
-DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=type--- Valid options for type are Debug, Release, RelWithDebInfo, and MinSizeRel. Default is Debug. -
-DLLVM_ENABLE_ASSERTIONS=On--- Compile with assertion checks enabled (default is Yes for Debug builds, No for all other build types).
-
cmake --build build [-- [options] <target>]or your build system specified above directly.-
The default target (i.e.
ninjaormake) will build all of LLVM. -
The
check-alltarget (i.e.ninja check-all) will run the regression tests to ensure everything is in working order. -
CMake will generate targets for each tool and library, and most LLVM sub-projects generate their own
check-<project>target. -
Running a serial build will be slow. To improve speed, try running a parallel build. That's done by default in Ninja; for
make, use the option-j NNN, whereNNNis the number of parallel jobs, e.g. the number of CPUs you have.
-
-
For more information see CMake
-
Consult the Getting Started with LLVM page for detailed information on configuring and compiling LLVM. You can visit Directory Layout to learn about the layout of the source code tree.