This is an archive of the discontinued LLVM Phabricator instance.

[WebAssembly] Allow for the creation of user-defined custom sections
ClosedPublic

Authored by sunfish on Feb 8 2018, 4:03 PM.

Details

Reviewers
sbc100
ncw
Summary

This patch adds a way for users to create their own custom sections to be added to wasm files. At the LLVM IR layer, they are defined through the "wasm.custom_sections" named metadata. The expected use case for this is bindings generators such as wasm-bindgen.

Diff Detail

Repository
rL LLVM

Event Timeline

sunfish created this revision.Feb 8 2018, 4:03 PM
sbc100 added a comment.Feb 8 2018, 6:44 PM

Sorry maybe I'm jumping the gun here because haven't assigned a reviewer yet..

Can we have test in test/MC/WebAssembly too?

lib/MC/WasmObjectWriter.cpp
992

would ArrayRef<char> ? Or ArrayRef<uint8_t> work better here?

sunfish updated this revision to Diff 133627.Feb 9 2018, 8:51 AM

Add an MC test.

Sorry maybe I'm jumping the gun here because haven't assigned a reviewer yet..

You're good. For LLVM patches, I'm accustomed to posting the patch first, and letting reviewers choose themselves, or in any case figuring it out later.

Can we have test in test/MC/WebAssembly too?

Added.

lib/MC/WasmObjectWriter.cpp
992

I initially did exactly that, with ArrayRef and uint8_t, however writeBytes takes a SmallVectorImpl<char>.

ncw added inline comments.Feb 9 2018, 9:44 AM
lib/MC/WasmObjectWriter.cpp
992

It could be a bit less ugly with a typedef/"using=" for the std::pair (and in fact for all these vectors here which have rather long types)

sbc100 added inline comments.Feb 9 2018, 2:16 PM
lib/MC/WasmObjectWriter.cpp
992

Why does writeBytes not take an ArrayRef? There is an overload that takes a StringRef..

sunfish updated this revision to Diff 133691.Feb 9 2018, 2:52 PM

Created a struct to replace the noisy std::pair code.

I think it's because writeBytes is defined to be passed data from an MCFragment's getContents(), which is a SmallVectorImpl<char>. That's the case here too, though the code that does the getContents() is a little separated from the writeBytes. Following @ncw's suggestion, I created a struct type, which not only avoids repeating the type name, but also makes the use of it cleaner than std::pair.

This user-defined custom sections patch should be ready to go now.

sbc100 added inline comments.Mar 8 2018, 1:56 PM
lib/MC/WasmObjectWriter.cpp
226

This seems like it makes the code more complex than it needs to be.

If you must change it from char* how about just StringRef Name = "" and use Name.empty() to check for its presence?

Is ths part of the change needed for the new feature?

1075

Use ArrayRef<char>, here and in WasmCustomSection?

ncw added a comment.Mar 10 2018, 8:31 AM

How do you expect the linker to handle these custom sections? We currently discard them. Will there be semantics for how to merge them, if there are name clashes, etc...?

I can't see a problem with the code and approach - don't wait on my review - but I'm just a bit hazy on the end-to-end story for bindings generators (which presumably will have to hook into things at the C level via a new attribute?)

In D43097#1033939, @ncw wrote:

How do you expect the linker to handle these custom sections? We currently discard them. Will there be semantics for how to merge them, if there are name clashes, etc...?

I can't see a problem with the code and approach - don't wait on my review - but I'm just a bit hazy on the end-to-end story for bindings generators (which presumably will have to hook into things at the C level via a new attribute?)

I imagine that sections with the same name should be concatenated (with relocations as needed). At least this is what I think the linker currently does for debug sections in ELF. I could be wrong though.

This should probably be coordinated with https://reviews.llvm.org/D44184 since they both add custom sections. Maybe this should land first and the dwarf change can be simplified?

@sunfish do you have some time to look at this again and get it landed? I would like to start work on the lld-side, so the we can also get debug info working. (I can start before this lands of course, so just FYI really.)

sbc100 accepted this revision.Mar 16 2018, 12:30 PM

LGTM, with comments.

This revision is now accepted and ready to land.Mar 16 2018, 12:30 PM

Ping. Can we get this landed?

sbc100 added a comment.Apr 4 2018, 3:57 PM

I rebased and cleaned this up a litte: https://reviews.llvm.org/D45297. OK if I land?