228 lines
		
	
	
		
			11 KiB
		
	
	
	
		
			ReStructuredText
		
	
	
	
			
		
		
	
	
			228 lines
		
	
	
		
			11 KiB
		
	
	
	
		
			ReStructuredText
		
	
	
	
| ====================================
 | |
| LLVM bugpoint tool: design and usage
 | |
| ====================================
 | |
| 
 | |
| .. contents::
 | |
|    :local:
 | |
| 
 | |
| Description
 | |
| ===========
 | |
| 
 | |
| ``bugpoint`` narrows down the source of problems in LLVM tools and passes.  It
 | |
| can be used to debug three types of failures: optimizer crashes, miscompilations
 | |
| by optimizers, or bad native code generation (including problems in the static
 | |
| and JIT compilers).  It aims to reduce large test cases to small, useful ones.
 | |
| For example, if ``opt`` crashes while optimizing a file, it will identify the
 | |
| optimization (or combination of optimizations) that causes the crash, and reduce
 | |
| the file down to a small example which triggers the crash.
 | |
| 
 | |
| For detailed case scenarios, such as debugging ``opt``, or one of the LLVM code
 | |
| generators, see :doc:`HowToSubmitABug`.
 | |
| 
 | |
| Design Philosophy
 | |
| =================
 | |
| 
 | |
| ``bugpoint`` is designed to be a useful tool without requiring any hooks into
 | |
| the LLVM infrastructure at all.  It works with any and all LLVM passes and code
 | |
| generators, and does not need to "know" how they work.  Because of this, it may
 | |
| appear to do stupid things or miss obvious simplifications.  ``bugpoint`` is
 | |
| also designed to trade off programmer time for computer time in the
 | |
| compiler-debugging process; consequently, it may take a long period of
 | |
| (unattended) time to reduce a test case, but we feel it is still worth it. Note
 | |
| that ``bugpoint`` is generally very quick unless debugging a miscompilation
 | |
| where each test of the program (which requires executing it) takes a long time.
 | |
| 
 | |
| Automatic Debugger Selection
 | |
| ----------------------------
 | |
| 
 | |
| ``bugpoint`` reads each ``.bc`` or ``.ll`` file specified on the command line
 | |
| and links them together into a single module, called the test program.  If any
 | |
| LLVM passes are specified on the command line, it runs these passes on the test
 | |
| program.  If any of the passes crash, or if they produce malformed output (which
 | |
| causes the verifier to abort), ``bugpoint`` starts the `crash debugger`_.
 | |
| 
 | |
| Otherwise, if the ``-output`` option was not specified, ``bugpoint`` runs the
 | |
| test program with the "safe" backend (which is assumed to generate good code) to
 | |
| generate a reference output.  Once ``bugpoint`` has a reference output for the
 | |
| test program, it tries executing it with the selected code generator.  If the
 | |
| selected code generator crashes, ``bugpoint`` starts the `crash debugger`_ on
 | |
| the code generator.  Otherwise, if the resulting output differs from the
 | |
| reference output, it assumes the difference resulted from a code generator
 | |
| failure, and starts the `code generator debugger`_.
 | |
| 
 | |
| Finally, if the output of the selected code generator matches the reference
 | |
| output, ``bugpoint`` runs the test program after all of the LLVM passes have
 | |
| been applied to it.  If its output differs from the reference output, it assumes
 | |
| the difference resulted from a failure in one of the LLVM passes, and enters the
 | |
| `miscompilation debugger`_.  Otherwise, there is no problem ``bugpoint`` can
 | |
| debug.
 | |
| 
 | |
| .. _crash debugger:
 | |
| 
 | |
| Crash debugger
 | |
| --------------
 | |
| 
 | |
| If an optimizer or code generator crashes, ``bugpoint`` will try as hard as it
 | |
| can to reduce the list of passes (for optimizer crashes) and the size of the
 | |
| test program.  First, ``bugpoint`` figures out which combination of optimizer
 | |
| passes triggers the bug. This is useful when debugging a problem exposed by
 | |
| ``opt``, for example, because it runs over 38 passes.
 | |
| 
 | |
| Next, ``bugpoint`` tries removing functions from the test program, to reduce its
 | |
| size.  Usually it is able to reduce a test program to a single function, when
 | |
| debugging intraprocedural optimizations.  Once the number of functions has been
 | |
| reduced, it attempts to delete various edges in the control flow graph, to
 | |
| reduce the size of the function as much as possible.  Finally, ``bugpoint``
 | |
| deletes any individual LLVM instructions whose absence does not eliminate the
 | |
| failure.  At the end, ``bugpoint`` should tell you what passes crash, give you a
 | |
| bitcode file, and give you instructions on how to reproduce the failure with
 | |
| ``opt`` or ``llc``.
 | |
| 
 | |
| .. _code generator debugger:
 | |
| 
 | |
| Code generator debugger
 | |
| -----------------------
 | |
| 
 | |
| The code generator debugger attempts to narrow down the amount of code that is
 | |
| being miscompiled by the selected code generator.  To do this, it takes the test
 | |
| program and partitions it into two pieces: one piece which it compiles with the
 | |
| "safe" backend (into a shared object), and one piece which it runs with either
 | |
| the JIT or the static LLC compiler.  It uses several techniques to reduce the
 | |
| amount of code pushed through the LLVM code generator, to reduce the potential
 | |
| scope of the problem.  After it is finished, it emits two bitcode files (called
 | |
| "test" [to be compiled with the code generator] and "safe" [to be compiled with
 | |
| the "safe" backend], respectively), and instructions for reproducing the
 | |
| problem.  The code generator debugger assumes that the "safe" backend produces
 | |
| good code.
 | |
| 
 | |
| .. _miscompilation debugger:
 | |
| 
 | |
| Miscompilation debugger
 | |
| -----------------------
 | |
| 
 | |
| The miscompilation debugger works similarly to the code generator debugger.  It
 | |
| works by splitting the test program into two pieces, running the optimizations
 | |
| specified on one piece, linking the two pieces back together, and then executing
 | |
| the result.  It attempts to narrow down the list of passes to the one (or few)
 | |
| which are causing the miscompilation, then reduce the portion of the test
 | |
| program which is being miscompiled.  The miscompilation debugger assumes that
 | |
| the selected code generator is working properly.
 | |
| 
 | |
| Advice for using bugpoint
 | |
| =========================
 | |
| 
 | |
| ``bugpoint`` can be a remarkably useful tool, but it sometimes works in
 | |
| non-obvious ways.  Here are some hints and tips:
 | |
| 
 | |
| * In the code generator and miscompilation debuggers, ``bugpoint`` only works
 | |
|   with programs that have deterministic output.  Thus, if the program outputs
 | |
|   ``argv[0]``, the date, time, or any other "random" data, ``bugpoint`` may
 | |
|   misinterpret differences in these data, when output, as the result of a
 | |
|   miscompilation.  Programs should be temporarily modified to disable outputs
 | |
|   that are likely to vary from run to run.
 | |
| 
 | |
| * In the `crash debugger`_, ``bugpoint`` does not distinguish different crashes
 | |
|   during reduction. Thus, if new crash or miscompilation happens, ``bugpoint``
 | |
|   will continue with the new crash instead. If you would like to stick to
 | |
|   particular crash, you should write check scripts to validate the error
 | |
|   message, see ``-compile-command`` in :doc:`CommandGuide/bugpoint`.
 | |
| 
 | |
| * In the code generator and miscompilation debuggers, debugging will go faster
 | |
|   if you manually modify the program or its inputs to reduce the runtime, but
 | |
|   still exhibit the problem.
 | |
| 
 | |
| * ``bugpoint`` is extremely useful when working on a new optimization: it helps
 | |
|   track down regressions quickly.  To avoid having to relink ``bugpoint`` every
 | |
|   time you change your optimization however, have ``bugpoint`` dynamically load
 | |
|   your optimization with the ``-load`` option.
 | |
| 
 | |
| * ``bugpoint`` can generate a lot of output and run for a long period of time.
 | |
|   It is often useful to capture the output of the program to file.  For example,
 | |
|   in the C shell, you can run:
 | |
| 
 | |
|   .. code-block:: console
 | |
| 
 | |
|     $ bugpoint  ... |& tee bugpoint.log
 | |
| 
 | |
|   to get a copy of ``bugpoint``'s output in the file ``bugpoint.log``, as well
 | |
|   as on your terminal.
 | |
| 
 | |
| * ``bugpoint`` cannot debug problems with the LLVM linker. If ``bugpoint``
 | |
|   crashes before you see its "All input ok" message, you might try ``llvm-link
 | |
|   -v`` on the same set of input files. If that also crashes, you may be
 | |
|   experiencing a linker bug.
 | |
| 
 | |
| * ``bugpoint`` is useful for proactively finding bugs in LLVM.  Invoking
 | |
|   ``bugpoint`` with the ``-find-bugs`` option will cause the list of specified
 | |
|   optimizations to be randomized and applied to the program. This process will
 | |
|   repeat until a bug is found or the user kills ``bugpoint``.
 | |
| 
 | |
| * ``bugpoint`` can produce IR which contains long names. Run ``opt
 | |
|   -metarenamer`` over the IR to rename everything using easy-to-read,
 | |
|   metasyntactic names. Alternatively, run ``opt -strip -instnamer`` to rename
 | |
|   everything with very short (often purely numeric) names.
 | |
| 
 | |
| What to do when bugpoint isn't enough
 | |
| =====================================
 | |
| 	
 | |
| Sometimes, ``bugpoint`` is not enough. In particular, InstCombine and
 | |
| TargetLowering both have visitor structured code with lots of potential
 | |
| transformations.  If the process of using bugpoint has left you with still too
 | |
| much code to figure out and the problem seems to be in instcombine, the
 | |
| following steps may help.  These same techniques are useful with TargetLowering
 | |
| as well.
 | |
| 
 | |
| Turn on ``-debug-only=instcombine`` and see which transformations within
 | |
| instcombine are firing by selecting out lines with "``IC``" in them.
 | |
| 
 | |
| At this point, you have a decision to make.  Is the number of transformations
 | |
| small enough to step through them using a debugger?  If so, then try that.
 | |
| 
 | |
| If there are too many transformations, then a source modification approach may
 | |
| be helpful.  In this approach, you can modify the source code of instcombine to
 | |
| disable just those transformations that are being performed on your test input
 | |
| and perform a binary search over the set of transformations.  One set of places
 | |
| to modify are the "``visit*``" methods of ``InstCombiner`` (*e.g.*
 | |
| ``visitICmpInst``) by adding a "``return false``" as the first line of the
 | |
| method.
 | |
| 
 | |
| If that still doesn't remove enough, then change the caller of
 | |
| ``InstCombiner::DoOneIteration``, ``InstCombiner::runOnFunction`` to limit the
 | |
| number of iterations.
 | |
| 
 | |
| You may also find it useful to use "``-stats``" now to see what parts of
 | |
| instcombine are firing.  This can guide where to put additional reporting code.
 | |
| 
 | |
| At this point, if the amount of transformations is still too large, then
 | |
| inserting code to limit whether or not to execute the body of the code in the
 | |
| visit function can be helpful.  Add a static counter which is incremented on
 | |
| every invocation of the function.  Then add code which simply returns false on
 | |
| desired ranges.  For example:
 | |
| 
 | |
| .. code-block:: c++
 | |
| 
 | |
| 
 | |
|   static int calledCount = 0;
 | |
|   calledCount++;
 | |
|   LLVM_DEBUG(if (calledCount < 212) return false);
 | |
|   LLVM_DEBUG(if (calledCount > 217) return false);
 | |
|   LLVM_DEBUG(if (calledCount == 213) return false);
 | |
|   LLVM_DEBUG(if (calledCount == 214) return false);
 | |
|   LLVM_DEBUG(if (calledCount == 215) return false);
 | |
|   LLVM_DEBUG(if (calledCount == 216) return false);
 | |
|   LLVM_DEBUG(dbgs() << "visitXOR calledCount: " << calledCount << "\n");
 | |
|   LLVM_DEBUG(dbgs() << "I: "; I->dump());
 | |
| 
 | |
| could be added to ``visitXOR`` to limit ``visitXor`` to being applied only to
 | |
| calls 212 and 217. This is from an actual test case and raises an important
 | |
| point---a simple binary search may not be sufficient, as transformations that
 | |
| interact may require isolating more than one call.  In TargetLowering, use
 | |
| ``return SDNode();`` instead of ``return false;``.
 | |
| 
 | |
| Now that the number of transformations is down to a manageable number, try
 | |
| examining the output to see if you can figure out which transformations are
 | |
| being done.  If that can be figured out, then do the usual debugging.  If which
 | |
| code corresponds to the transformation being performed isn't obvious, set a
 | |
| breakpoint after the call count based disabling and step through the code.
 | |
| Alternatively, you can use "``printf``" style debugging to report waypoints.
 |