minglotus-6 wrote:
> > > > Yes there are tradeoffs to doing this purely with whole program class
> > > > hierarchy analysis vs with profiled type info, and in fact they can be
> > > > complementary. For example, the profile info can indicate what order to
> > > > do the vtable comparisons (i.e. descending order of hotness, as we do
> > > > for vfunc comparisons in current ICP), while WP CHA can be used to
> > > > determine when no fallback is required. Also, another advantage of
> > > > doing this with profiling is also that it does not require WP
> > > > visibility, which may be difficult to guarantee.
> > >
> > >
> > > Gotcha, that makes sense. Are there plans on your side to extend this
> > > level of value profiling/WP CHA to AutoFDO? I'm looking into trying out
> > > the WP CHA approach on my side since it looks like there are cases it can
> > > catch in our internal workloads.
> >
> >
> > AutoFDO support is a natural follow-up for profile-gen. I'm currently
> > working on having more vtable comparisons with class-hierarchy-analysis and
> > do more devirtualization with type information.
>
> Can you elaborate on what cases your current work is targeting? I was
> planning on starting work to catch the following:
>
> ```
> class base
> {
> virtual int foo() = 0;
> }
>
> class derive1 : base
> {
> virtual int foo() {/*unique implementation*/};
> }
>
> class derive2 : base
> {
> virtual int foo() {/*unique implementation*/};
> }
>
> void callee(base* b)
> {
> b->foo(); // profile information indicates target is primarily
> derive2::foo()
> }
> ```
>
> Where we can directly compare vtable address instead of function address. If
> you're already working on this case then I don't want to step on your toes
> and just wait for your changes.
Thanks for clarification. Comparing vtable addresses was the first use case and
I got a prototype and got [wins mentioned
above](https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/66825#issuecomment-1741534866).
One test case (https://gcc.godbolt.org/z/eqvz4WxGM) pasted into godbolt, and
auto-generated `ICALL-FUNC` `ICALL-VTABLE` elaborates the expected
transformations. Besides selective vtable comparison, I'm planning to work on
the [dynamic type
propagation](https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/66825#issuecomment-1741560195).
I could send out a draft patch about the vtable comparison (and thinlto import
of the vtable variables) and a small RFC in the next few days.
> Is there a need to have a separate vtable name section? Merging the vtable
> names with function name table can make the implementation simpler.
The motivation to have a separate vtable name section at profile-gen time is to
make profile-use easier. For example, in llvm-profdata.cpp around line 350 to
line 356, reader gets all vtable names and add them to [indexed profile
writer](https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/ac0dda894231e6281e7739aa0ea01a4e9697c747/llvm/tools/llvm-profdata/llvm-profdata.cpp#L214).
A similar requirement to get all function names doesn't exist, since function
names exist in `NamedInstrProfRecord`.
The high level idea is
1) have two new sections (vtable names, and per vtable profile data ) in the
instrumented binary and change raw profile header/reader/write (per function
offsets, etc) accordingly. This change comes with a version bump and less
flexible to change.
2) The internal states (combining `MD5VTableMap` and `MD5FunctionMap`) have
more flexibility to change (without version bump or profile header change, etc)
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/66825
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
