mirror of
				https://github.com/c64scene-ar/llvm-6502.git
				synced 2025-10-31 08:16:47 +00:00 
			
		
		
		
	git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@158808 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
		
			
				
	
	
		
			299 lines
		
	
	
		
			11 KiB
		
	
	
	
		
			ReStructuredText
		
	
	
	
	
	
			
		
		
	
	
			299 lines
		
	
	
		
			11 KiB
		
	
	
	
		
			ReStructuredText
		
	
	
	
	
	
| .. _lto:
 | |
| 
 | |
| ======================================================
 | |
| LLVM Link Time Optimization: Design and Implementation
 | |
| ======================================================
 | |
| 
 | |
| .. contents::
 | |
|    :local:
 | |
| 
 | |
| Description
 | |
| ===========
 | |
| 
 | |
| LLVM features powerful intermodular optimizations which can be used at link
 | |
| time.  Link Time Optimization (LTO) is another name for intermodular
 | |
| optimization when performed during the link stage. This document describes the
 | |
| interface and design between the LTO optimizer and the linker.
 | |
| 
 | |
| Design Philosophy
 | |
| =================
 | |
| 
 | |
| The LLVM Link Time Optimizer provides complete transparency, while doing
 | |
| intermodular optimization, in the compiler tool chain. Its main goal is to let
 | |
| the developer take advantage of intermodular optimizations without making any
 | |
| significant changes to the developer's makefiles or build system. This is
 | |
| achieved through tight integration with the linker. In this model, the linker
 | |
| treates LLVM bitcode files like native object files and allows mixing and
 | |
| matching among them. The linker uses `libLTO`_, a shared object, to handle LLVM
 | |
| bitcode files. This tight integration between the linker and LLVM optimizer
 | |
| helps to do optimizations that are not possible in other models. The linker
 | |
| input allows the optimizer to avoid relying on conservative escape analysis.
 | |
| 
 | |
| Example of link time optimization
 | |
| ---------------------------------
 | |
| 
 | |
| The following example illustrates the advantages of LTO's integrated approach
 | |
| and clean interface. This example requires a system linker which supports LTO
 | |
| through the interface described in this document.  Here, clang transparently
 | |
| invokes system linker.
 | |
| 
 | |
| * Input source file ``a.c`` is compiled into LLVM bitcode form.
 | |
| * Input source file ``main.c`` is compiled into native object code.
 | |
| 
 | |
| .. code-block:: c++
 | |
| 
 | |
|   --- a.h ---
 | |
|   extern int foo1(void);
 | |
|   extern void foo2(void);
 | |
|   extern void foo4(void);
 | |
| 
 | |
|   --- a.c ---
 | |
|   #include "a.h"
 | |
| 
 | |
|   static signed int i = 0;
 | |
| 
 | |
|   void foo2(void) {
 | |
|     i = -1;
 | |
|   }
 | |
| 
 | |
|   static int foo3() {
 | |
|     foo4();
 | |
|     return 10;
 | |
|   }
 | |
| 
 | |
|   int foo1(void) {
 | |
|     int data = 0;
 | |
| 
 | |
|     if (i < 0) 
 | |
|       data = foo3();
 | |
| 
 | |
|     data = data + 42;
 | |
|     return data;
 | |
|   }
 | |
| 
 | |
|   --- main.c ---
 | |
|   #include <stdio.h>
 | |
|   #include "a.h"
 | |
| 
 | |
|   void foo4(void) {
 | |
|     printf("Hi\n");
 | |
|   }
 | |
| 
 | |
|   int main() {
 | |
|     return foo1();
 | |
|   }
 | |
| 
 | |
| .. code-block:: bash
 | |
| 
 | |
|   --- command lines ---
 | |
|   % clang -emit-llvm -c a.c -o a.o   # <-- a.o is LLVM bitcode file
 | |
|   % clang -c main.c -o main.o        # <-- main.o is native object file
 | |
|   % clang a.o main.o -o main         # <-- standard link command without modifications
 | |
| 
 | |
| * In this example, the linker recognizes that ``foo2()`` is an externally
 | |
|   visible symbol defined in LLVM bitcode file. The linker completes its usual
 | |
|   symbol resolution pass and finds that ``foo2()`` is not used
 | |
|   anywhere. This information is used by the LLVM optimizer and it
 | |
|   removes ``foo2()``.</li>
 | |
| 
 | |
| * As soon as ``foo2()`` is removed, the optimizer recognizes that condition ``i
 | |
|   < 0`` is always false, which means ``foo3()`` is never used. Hence, the
 | |
|   optimizer also removes ``foo3()``.
 | |
| 
 | |
| * And this in turn, enables linker to remove ``foo4()``.
 | |
| 
 | |
| This example illustrates the advantage of tight integration with the
 | |
| linker. Here, the optimizer can not remove ``foo3()`` without the linker's
 | |
| input.
 | |
| 
 | |
| Alternative Approaches
 | |
| ----------------------
 | |
| 
 | |
| **Compiler driver invokes link time optimizer separately.**
 | |
|     In this model the link time optimizer is not able to take advantage of
 | |
|     information collected during the linker's normal symbol resolution phase.
 | |
|     In the above example, the optimizer can not remove ``foo2()`` without the
 | |
|     linker's input because it is externally visible. This in turn prohibits the
 | |
|     optimizer from removing ``foo3()``.
 | |
| 
 | |
| **Use separate tool to collect symbol information from all object files.**
 | |
|     In this model, a new, separate, tool or library replicates the linker's
 | |
|     capability to collect information for link time optimization. Not only is
 | |
|     this code duplication difficult to justify, but it also has several other
 | |
|     disadvantages.  For example, the linking semantics and the features provided
 | |
|     by the linker on various platform are not unique. This means, this new tool
 | |
|     needs to support all such features and platforms in one super tool or a
 | |
|     separate tool per platform is required. This increases maintenance cost for
 | |
|     link time optimizer significantly, which is not necessary. This approach
 | |
|     also requires staying synchronized with linker developements on various
 | |
|     platforms, which is not the main focus of the link time optimizer. Finally,
 | |
|     this approach increases end user's build time due to the duplication of work
 | |
|     done by this separate tool and the linker itself.
 | |
| 
 | |
| Multi-phase communication between ``libLTO`` and linker
 | |
| =======================================================
 | |
| 
 | |
| The linker collects information about symbol defininitions and uses in various
 | |
| link objects which is more accurate than any information collected by other
 | |
| tools during typical build cycles.  The linker collects this information by
 | |
| looking at the definitions and uses of symbols in native .o files and using
 | |
| symbol visibility information. The linker also uses user-supplied information,
 | |
| such as a list of exported symbols. LLVM optimizer collects control flow
 | |
| information, data flow information and knows much more about program structure
 | |
| from the optimizer's point of view.  Our goal is to take advantage of tight
 | |
| integration between the linker and the optimizer by sharing this information
 | |
| during various linking phases.
 | |
| 
 | |
| Phase 1 : Read LLVM Bitcode Files
 | |
| ---------------------------------
 | |
| 
 | |
| The linker first reads all object files in natural order and collects symbol
 | |
| information. This includes native object files as well as LLVM bitcode files.
 | |
| To minimize the cost to the linker in the case that all .o files are native
 | |
| object files, the linker only calls ``lto_module_create()`` when a supplied
 | |
| object file is found to not be a native object file.  If ``lto_module_create()``
 | |
| returns that the file is an LLVM bitcode file, the linker then iterates over the
 | |
| module using ``lto_module_get_symbol_name()`` and
 | |
| ``lto_module_get_symbol_attribute()`` to get all symbols defined and referenced.
 | |
| This information is added to the linker's global symbol table.
 | |
| 
 | |
| 
 | |
| The lto* functions are all implemented in a shared object libLTO.  This allows
 | |
| the LLVM LTO code to be updated independently of the linker tool.  On platforms
 | |
| that support it, the shared object is lazily loaded.
 | |
| 
 | |
| Phase 2 : Symbol Resolution
 | |
| ---------------------------
 | |
| 
 | |
| In this stage, the linker resolves symbols using global symbol table.  It may
 | |
| report undefined symbol errors, read archive members, replace weak symbols, etc.
 | |
| The linker is able to do this seamlessly even though it does not know the exact
 | |
| content of input LLVM bitcode files.  If dead code stripping is enabled then the
 | |
| linker collects the list of live symbols.
 | |
| 
 | |
| Phase 3 : Optimize Bitcode Files
 | |
| --------------------------------
 | |
| 
 | |
| After symbol resolution, the linker tells the LTO shared object which symbols
 | |
| are needed by native object files.  In the example above, the linker reports
 | |
| that only ``foo1()`` is used by native object files using
 | |
| ``lto_codegen_add_must_preserve_symbol()``.  Next the linker invokes the LLVM
 | |
| optimizer and code generators using ``lto_codegen_compile()`` which returns a
 | |
| native object file creating by merging the LLVM bitcode files and applying
 | |
| various optimization passes.
 | |
| 
 | |
| Phase 4 : Symbol Resolution after optimization
 | |
| ----------------------------------------------
 | |
| 
 | |
| In this phase, the linker reads optimized a native object file and updates the
 | |
| internal global symbol table to reflect any changes. The linker also collects
 | |
| information about any changes in use of external symbols by LLVM bitcode
 | |
| files. In the example above, the linker notes that ``foo4()`` is not used any
 | |
| more. If dead code stripping is enabled then the linker refreshes the live
 | |
| symbol information appropriately and performs dead code stripping.
 | |
| 
 | |
| After this phase, the linker continues linking as if it never saw LLVM bitcode
 | |
| files.
 | |
| 
 | |
| .. _libLTO:
 | |
| 
 | |
| ``libLTO``
 | |
| ==========
 | |
| 
 | |
| ``libLTO`` is a shared object that is part of the LLVM tools, and is intended
 | |
| for use by a linker. ``libLTO`` provides an abstract C interface to use the LLVM
 | |
| interprocedural optimizer without exposing details of LLVM's internals. The
 | |
| intention is to keep the interface as stable as possible even when the LLVM
 | |
| optimizer continues to evolve. It should even be possible for a completely
 | |
| different compilation technology to provide a different libLTO that works with
 | |
| their object files and the standard linker tool.
 | |
| 
 | |
| ``lto_module_t``
 | |
| ----------------
 | |
| 
 | |
| A non-native object file is handled via an ``lto_module_t``.  The following
 | |
| functions allow the linker to check if a file (on disk or in a memory buffer) is
 | |
| a file which libLTO can process:
 | |
| 
 | |
| .. code-block:: c
 | |
| 
 | |
|   lto_module_is_object_file(const char*)
 | |
|   lto_module_is_object_file_for_target(const char*, const char*)
 | |
|   lto_module_is_object_file_in_memory(const void*, size_t)
 | |
|   lto_module_is_object_file_in_memory_for_target(const void*, size_t, const char*)
 | |
| 
 | |
| If the object file can be processed by ``libLTO``, the linker creates a
 | |
| ``lto_module_t`` by using one of:
 | |
| 
 | |
| .. code-block:: c
 | |
| 
 | |
|   lto_module_create(const char*)
 | |
|   lto_module_create_from_memory(const void*, size_t)
 | |
| 
 | |
| and when done, the handle is released via
 | |
| 
 | |
| .. code-block:: c
 | |
| 
 | |
|   lto_module_dispose(lto_module_t)
 | |
| 
 | |
| 
 | |
| The linker can introspect the non-native object file by getting the number of
 | |
| symbols and getting the name and attributes of each symbol via:
 | |
| 
 | |
| .. code-block:: c
 | |
| 
 | |
|   lto_module_get_num_symbols(lto_module_t)
 | |
|   lto_module_get_symbol_name(lto_module_t, unsigned int)
 | |
|   lto_module_get_symbol_attribute(lto_module_t, unsigned int)
 | |
| 
 | |
| The attributes of a symbol include the alignment, visibility, and kind.
 | |
| 
 | |
| ``lto_code_gen_t``
 | |
| ------------------
 | |
| 
 | |
| Once the linker has loaded each non-native object files into an
 | |
| ``lto_module_t``, it can request ``libLTO`` to process them all and generate a
 | |
| native object file.  This is done in a couple of steps.  First, a code generator
 | |
| is created with:
 | |
| 
 | |
| .. code-block:: c
 | |
| 
 | |
|   lto_codegen_create()
 | |
| 
 | |
| Then, each non-native object file is added to the code generator with:
 | |
| 
 | |
| .. code-block:: c
 | |
| 
 | |
|   lto_codegen_add_module(lto_code_gen_t, lto_module_t)
 | |
| 
 | |
| The linker then has the option of setting some codegen options.  Whether or not
 | |
| to generate DWARF debug info is set with:
 | |
|   
 | |
| .. code-block:: c
 | |
| 
 | |
|   lto_codegen_set_debug_model(lto_code_gen_t)
 | |
| 
 | |
| Which kind of position independence is set with:
 | |
| 
 | |
| .. code-block:: c
 | |
| 
 | |
|   lto_codegen_set_pic_model(lto_code_gen_t)
 | |
|   
 | |
| And each symbol that is referenced by a native object file or otherwise must not
 | |
| be optimized away is set with:
 | |
| 
 | |
| .. code-block:: c
 | |
| 
 | |
|   lto_codegen_add_must_preserve_symbol(lto_code_gen_t, const char*)
 | |
| 
 | |
| After all these settings are done, the linker requests that a native object file
 | |
| be created from the modules with the settings using:
 | |
| 
 | |
| .. code-block:: c
 | |
| 
 | |
|   lto_codegen_compile(lto_code_gen_t, size*)
 | |
| 
 | |
| which returns a pointer to a buffer containing the generated native object file.
 | |
| The linker then parses that and links it with the rest of the native object
 | |
| files.
 |