I want my language backend to build functions and types incrementally but don't pollute the main module and context when functions and types fail to build successfully (due to problems with the user input).
I ask an earlier question regarding this.
One strategy i can see for this would be building everything in temp module and LLVMContext, migrating to main context only after success, but i am not sure if that is possible with the current API. For instance, i wouldn't know know to migrate that content between different contexts, as they are supposed to represent isolated islands of LLVM functionality, but maybe there is always the alternative to save everything to .bc and load somewhere else?
what other strategies would you suggest for achieving this?
Assuming you have two modules - source and destination, it's possible to copy a function from source to destination. The code in LLVM you can use as an example is the body of the LLVM linker, in lib/linker/LinkModules.cpp.
In particular, look at the linkFunctionProto and linkFunctionBody methods in that file. linkFunctionBody copies the function definition, and uses the llvm::CloneFunctionInto utility for the heavy lifting.
As for LLVMContext, unless you specifically need to run several LLVM instances simultaneously in different threads, don't worry about it too much and just use getGlobalContext() everywhere a context is required. Read this doc page for more information.
Related
I'm developing a new language in LLVM using the C++ API which compiles down to target the C ABI.
I would like to support modular compilation by allowing end users to build what are effectively static libraries. I noticed the LLVM C++ API has a llvm::Linker class that I can use during compilation to combine source files (llvm::Module), however I wanted to guarantee library compatibility via metadata version numbers or at least the publicly exposed interface between separate compilation runs.
Much of the information available on metadata in LLVM suggest that it should only be used for extended information that would not break correctness when silently removed.
llvm
blog
IntrinsicsMetadataAttributes
pdf
I wouldn't think this would be a deal breaker as it could be global metadata, but it would be good to get a second opinion on that point.
I also know there is a method in IRReader to parseIRFile so I can load some previously built bc files. I would be curious if it would be reasonable practice to include size and CRC information for comparison when loading these files.
My language has concepts similar to C# including interfaces. I figure I could allow modular compilation by importing/exporting an interface type along with external functions (Much like C++, I don't restrict the language to only methods of classes).
This approach allows me to include language specific information in the interface without needing to encode it in the IR as both the library and the calling code would be required to build with the interface. This again requires the interfaces to be compatible.
One language feature that would require extended information would be named parameters in functions.
My language is very type-safe and also mandates named parameters so there is no predetermined function parameter order. This allows call sites to be more explicit, the compiler to catch erroneous parameter usage, and authors have more liberty in determining default parameters as they are not restricted to the last parameters to the function.
The compiler will need to know names, modifiers, defaults, etc. of these parameters to correctly map calls at compile time, so I figure the interface approach would work well here.
TL;DR
Does LLVM have any predefined facilities for building static libraries?
Is version number, size, and CRC information reasonable use cases for LLVM's metadata?
This is probably not QUITE an answer... Or at least not a complete answer.
I like this question, as I'm going to need a solution in the future too (some time in the next few months or years) for my Pascal compiler. It supports "units" which is meant to be a separately compiled object, but currently what I do is simply drag in the source file and compile it into the main llvm::Module - that's neither efficient nor flexible (can't use the linker to choose between the "Linux" and "Windows" version of some code, for example - not that I think there is 5% chance that my compiler will work on Windows without modification anyway...)
However, I'm not sure storing the "object" file as LLVM IR would be the right thing to do. I was thinking that a better way would be to store your AST in some serialized form - then
you don't depend on LLVM versions changing the IR format.
You can add whatever metadata you like. There won't be much
difference in generating LLVM-IR from this during your link phase or
building the IR at compile and then reading the IR to figure out if
the metadata is correct. [The slow part, as you may have already found out, is the optimisation and MC generation, and you'd still have to do that either way]
Like I started out, I'm not sure this is an answer, but it's my thoughts so far on the subject. Now I'll go back to adding debug symbol stuff to my Pascal compiler... Before Christmas, I couldn't see the source in GDB. Now I can step, but no viewing of variables yet...
I need to provide my users the ability to write mathematical computations into the program. I plan to have a simple text interface with a few buttons including those to validate the script grammar, save etc.
Here's where it gets interesting. These functions the user is writing need to execute at multi-megabyte line speeds in a communications application. So I need the speed of a compiled language, but the usage of a script. A fully interpreted language just won't cut it.
My idea is to precompile the saved user modules into objects at initialization of the C++ application. I could then use these objects to execute the code when called upon. Here are the workflows I have in mind:
1) Testing(initial writing) of script: Write code in editor, save, compile into object (testing grammar), run with test I/O, Edit Code
2) Use of Code (Normal operation of application): Load script from file, compile script into object, Run object code, Run object code, Run object code, etc.
I've looked into several off the shelf interpreters, but can't find what I'm looking for. I considered JAVA, as it is pretty fast, but I would need to load the JAVA virtual machine, which means passing objects between C and the virtual machine... The interface is the bottleneck here. I really need to create a native C++ object running C++ code if possible. I also need to be able to run the code on multiple processors effectively in a controlled manner.
I'm not looking for the whole explanation on how to pull this off, as I can do my own research. I've been stalled for a couple days here now, however, and I really need a place to start looking.
As a last resort, I will create my own scripting language to fulfill the need, but that seems a waste with all the great interpreters out there. I've also considered taking an existing open source complier and slicing it up for the functionality I need... just not saving the compiled results to disk... I don't know. I would prefer to use a mainline language if possible... but that's not required.
Any help would be appreciated. I know this is not your run of the mill idea I have here, but someone has to have done it before.
Thanks!
P.S.
One thought that just occurred to me while writing this was this: what about using a true C compiler to create object code, save it to disk as a dll library, then reload and run it inside "my" code? Can you do that with MS Visual Studio? I need to look at the licensing of the compiler... how to reload the library dynamically while the main application continues to run... hmmmmm I could then just group the "functions" created by the user into library groups. Ok that's enough of this particular brain dump...
A possible solution could be use gcc (MingW since you are on windows) and build a DLL out of your user defined code. The DLL should export just one function. You can use the win32 API to handle the DLL (LoadLibrary/GetProcAddress etc.) At the end of this job you have a C style function pointer. The problem now are arguments. If your computation has just one parameter you can fo a cast to double (*funct)(double), but if you have many parameters you need to match them.
I think I've found a way to do this using standard C.
1) Standard C needs to be used because when it is compiled into a dll, the resulting interface is cross compatible with multiple compilers. I plan to do my primary development with MS Visual Studio and compile objects in my application using gcc (windows version)
2) I will expose certain variables to the user (inputs and outputs) and standardize them across units. This allows multiple units to be developed with the same interface.
3) The user will only create the inside of the function using standard C syntax and grammar. I will then wrap that function with text to fully define the function and it's environment (remember those variables I intend to expose?) I can also group multiple functions under a single executable unit (dll) using name parameters.
4) When the user wishes to test their function, I dump the dll from memory, compile their code with my wrappers in gcc, and then reload the dll into memory and run it. I would let them define inputs and outputs for testing.
5) Once the test/create step was complete, I have a compiled library created which can be loaded at run time and handled via pointers. The inputs and outputs would be standardized, so I would always know what my I/O was.
6) The only problem with standardized I/O is that some of the inputs and outputs are likely to not be used. I need to see if I can put default values in or something.
So, to sum up:
Think of an app with a text box and a few buttons. You are told that your inputs are named A, B, and C and that your outputs are X, Y, and Z of specified types. You then write a function using standard C code, and with functions from the specified libraries (I'm thinking math etc.)
So now your done... you see a few boxes below to define your input. You fill them in and hit the TEST button. This would wrap your code in a function context, dump the existing dll from memory (if it exists) and compile your code along with any other functions in the same group (another parameter you could define, basically just a name to the user.) It then runs the function using a functional pointer, using the inputs defined in the UI. The outputs are sent to the user so they can determine if their function works. If there are any compilation errors, that would also be outputted to the user.
Now it's time to run for real. Of course I kept track of what functions are where, so I dynamically open the dll, and load all the functions into memory with functional pointers. I start shoving data into one side and the functions give me the answers I need. There would be some overhead to track I/O and to make sure the functions are called in the right order, but the execution would be at compiled machine code speeds... which is my primary requirement.
Now... I have explained what I think will work in two different ways. Can you think of anything that would keep this from working, or perhaps any advice/gotchas/lessons learned that would help me out? Anything from the type of interface to tips on dynamically loading dll's in this manner to using the gcc compiler this way... etc would be most helpful.
Thanks!
I'm using the LLVM C++ API mostly as a code generator for a scripting language that is parsed and evaluated (generating code, compiling, and executing it) at runtime. Currently I'm investigating future use cases in the context of a distributed/concurrent system and wonder if and how these use cases could be implemented. Maybe you can share your thoughts:
Is there a way to generate LLVM code on one node in a distributed
system, serialize it to some wire format, send it to another node,
compile or recompile it there and then execute it? I'm already stuck
finding methods to serialize a module/function.
Are there ways to enable multi-threaded code
generation/compilation within the same LLVMContext, i.e., a pool of
threads shares a LLVMContext and generate/execute code within this
context simultaneously. What I found out so far is that there should
be a LLVMContext for each thread in this case. However, I can I then
share a module between the different contexts and relating to 1),
how could I move generated code from one module to the other?
You can definitely use LLVM bitcode format to forward the code from one node to another. See include/llvm/Bitcode/ReaderWriter.h and around for more info. You can also check the sources of LLVM tools to see how the bitcode is serialized and deserialized. You might find http://llvm.org/docs/BitCodeFormat.html useful.
Rationale: In my day-to-day C++ code development, I frequently need to
answer basic questions such as who calls what in a very large C++ code
base that is frequently changing. But, I also need to have some
automated way to exactly identify what the code is doing around a
particular area of code. "grep" tools such as Cscope are useful (and
I use them heavily already), but are not C++-language-aware: They
don't give any way to identify the types and kinds of lexical
environment of a given use of a type or function a such way that is
conducive to automation (even if said automation is limited to
"read-only" operations such as code browsing and navigation, but I'm
asking for much more than that below).
Question: Does there exist already an open-source C/C++-based library
(native, not managed, not Microsoft- or Linux-specific) that can
statically scan or analyze a large tree of C++ code, and can produce
result sets that answer detailed questions such as:
What functions are called by some supplied function?
What functions make use of this supplied type?
Ditto the above questions if C++ classes or class templates are involved.
The result set should provide some sort of "handle". I should be able
to feed that handle back to the library to perform the following types
of introspection:
What is the byte offset into the file where the reference was made?
What is the reference into the abstract syntax tree (AST) of that
reference, so that I can inspect surrounding code constructs? And
each AST entity would also have file path, byte-offset, and
type-info data associated with it, so that I could recursively walk
up the graph of callers or referrers to do useful operations.
The answer should meet the following requirements:
API: The API exposed must be one of the following:
C or C++ and probably is "C handle" or C++-class-instance-based
(and if it is, must be generic C o C++ code and not Microsoft- or
Linux-specific code constructs unless it is to meet specifics of
the given platform), or
Command-line standard input and standard output based.
C++ aware: Is not limited to C code, but understands C++ language
constructs in minute detail including awareness of inter-class
inheritance relationships and C++ templates.
Fast: Should scan large code bases significantly faster than
compiling the entire code base from scratch. This probably needs to
be relaxed, but only if Incremental result retrieval and Resilient
to small code changes requirements are fully met below.
Provide Result counts: I should be able to ask "How many results
would you provide to some request (and no don't send me all of the
results)?" that responds on the order of less than 3 seconds versus
having to retrieve all results for any given question. If it takes
too long to get that answer, then wastes development time. This is
coupled with the next requirement.
Incremental result retrieval: I should be able to then ask "Give me
just the next N results of this request", and then a handle to the
result set so that I can ask the question repeatedly, thus
incrementally pulling out the results in stages. This means I
should not have to wait for the entire result set before seeing
some subset of all of the results. And that I can cancel the
operation safely if I have seen enough results. Reason: I need to
answer the question: "What is the build or development impact of
changing some particular function signature?"
Resilient to small code changes: If I change a header or source
file, I should not have to wait for the entire code base to be
rescanned, but only that header or source file
rescanned. Rescanning should be quick. E.g., don't do what cscope
requires you to do, which is to rescan the entire code base for
small changes. It is understood that if you change a header, then
scanning can take longer since other files that include that header
would have to be rescanned.
IDE Agnostic: Is text editor agnostic (don't make me use a specific
text editor; I've made my choice already, thank you!)
Platform Agnostic: Is platform-agnostic (don't make me only use it
on Linux or only on Windows, as I have to use both of those
platforms in my daily grind, but I need the tool to be useful on
both as I have code sandboxes on both platforms).
Non-binary: Should not cost me anything other than time to download
and compile the library and all of its dependencies.
Not trial-ware.
Actively Supported: It is likely that sending help requests to mailing lists
or associated forums is likely to get a response in less than 2
days.
Network agnostic: Databases the library builds should be able to be used directly on
a network from 32-bit and 64-bit systems, both Linux and Windows
interchangeably, at the same time, and do not embed hardcoded paths
to filesystems that would otherwise "root" the database to a
particular network.
Build environment agnostic: Does not require intimate knowledge of my build environment, with
the notable exception of possibly requiring knowledge of compiler
supplied CPP macro definitions (e.g. -Dmacro=value).
I would say that CLang Index is a close fit. However I don't think that it stores data in a database.
Anyway the CLang framework offer what you actually need to build a tool tailored to your needs, if only because of its C, C++ and Objective-C parsing / indexing capabitilies. And since it's provided as a set of reusable libraries... it was crafted for being developed on!
I have to admit that I haven't used either because I work with a lot of Microsoft-specific code that uses Microsoft compiler extensions that i don't expect them to understand, but the two open source analyzers I'm aware of are Mozilla Pork and the Clang Analyzer.
If you are looking for results of code analysis (metrics, graphs, ...) why not use a tool (instead of API) to do that? If you can, I suggest you to take a look at Understand.
It's not free (there's a trial version) but I found it very useful.
Maybe Doxygen with GraphViz could be the answer of some of your constraints but not all,for example the analysis of Doxygen is not incremental.
I was wondering if its possible / anyone knows any tools out there to compare the execution of two related programs (for example, assignments on a class) to see how similar they are. For example, not to compare the names of functions, but how they use syscalls. One silly case of this would be testing if a C string is printed as (see example below) in more than one case one separate program.
printf("%s",str)
Or as
for (i=0;i<len;i++) printf("%c",str[i]);
I haven´t put much thought into this, but i would imagine that strace / ltrace (maybe even oprofile) would be a good starting point. Particularly, this is for UNIX C / C++ programs.
Thanks.
If you have access to the source code of the two programs, you may build a graph of the functions (each function is a node, and there is an edge from A to B if A calls B()), and compute some graph similarity metrics. This will catch a source code copy made by renaming and reorganizing.
An initial idea would be to use ltrace and strace to log the calls and then use diff on the logs. This would obviously only cover the library an system calls. If you need a more fine granular logging, the oprofile might help.
If you have access to the source code you could instrument your code by compiling it with profiling information and then parse the gcov output after the runs. A pure static source code analysis may be sufficient if your code is not taking different routes depending on external data/state.
I think you can do this kind of thing using valgrind.
A finer-grained version (and depending on what is the access to the program source and what you exactly want in terms of comparison) would be to use kprobes.
Kernel Dynamic Probes (Kprobes) provides a lightweight interface for kernel modules to implant probes and register corresponding probe handlers. A probe is an automated breakpoint that is implanted dynamically in executing (kernel-space) modules without the need to modify their underlying source. Probes are intended to be used as an ad hoc service aid where minimal disruption to the system is required. They are particularly advocated in production environments where the use of interactive debuggers is undesirable. Kprobes also has substantial applicability in test and development environments. During test, faults may be injected or simulated by the probing module. In development, debugging code (for example a printk) may be easily inserted without having to recompile to module under test.