Unlike ELF that the name of MCSymbol is combined section name and symbol
name, the name of MCSymbol of COFF doesn't include section name, for
distinguishing with non-split MCSymbol, add BBSectionsColdTextPrefix to
name of MCSymbol.
Details
Diff Detail
- Repository
- rG LLVM Github Monorepo
Event Timeline
Could you please give more details about COFF versus ELF differences with regards to
- DebuInfo Handling - Separating out a function into a separate section requires that debug info use dwarf ranges.
- CFI handling
if there are any. I am not familiar with COFF. Thanks for doing this!
llvm/lib/CodeGen/BasicBlockSections.cpp | ||
---|---|---|
83–84 | Maybe fix the comment too. |
Thanks for your review comment!
I don’t have any more detail information about COFF versus ELF difference with regards to DebugInfo and CFI handling.
I used this patch to build my c micro case, workable.
Is it ok that improves this feature by issue driven as it’s default off?
I’ll try to enable this feature to build some complex application, e.g. chromium windows, improve this feature if there are any issues.
llvm/lib/CodeGen/BasicBlockSections.cpp | ||
---|---|---|
83–84 | Fixed, thanks! |
IMHO we should not ship the split functions feature targeting COFF without more testing. The machine function splitter relies on basic block sections and we should ensure that the debug information/call frame information generated by basic block sections is appropriate for COFF based consumers. Perhaps we can start by extending the existing CFI and DebugInfo tests in llvm/test/CodeGen/X86/cfi-basic-block-sections-1.ll and llvm/test/DebugInfo/X86/basic-block-sections_1.ll (in a separate patch).
We are also very interested in having this work on windows targets such as Chromium so your initiative here is appreciated!
Thanks for your guidance of the existing CFI and DebugInfo tests, I'll add COFF tests.
Hi Tao, since it looks like you are making progress on this! I would suggest adding the Windows exception handling test for basic block sections instead of MFS in particular. It will simplify the test since you don't need profile information and we will get better confidence for the Propeller framework overall. It would be equivalent to this test: llvm/test/CodeGen/X86/basic-block-sections-eh.ll
Thanks Snehasish! I got the simplicity and value of Windows exception handling test for basic block sections. Is it ok adding llvm/test/CodeGen/X86/basic-block-sections-wineh.ll in a separate patch, as running the test won't execute the source code in this patch?
Yes, definitely adding it in a separate patch is a good idea :) Lets submit that patch first, before we submit with this one (otherwise any large binary generated by this patch is probably going to be broken).
It should include the necessary code changes for windows unwind info. I think the code modifications for that change should be in files: llvm/llvm-project/llvm/lib/MC/MCWin64EH.cpp and llvm/llvm-project/llvm/lib/CodeGen/AsmPrinter/WinException.cpp (this one will have changes for C++ programs with exceptions enabled).
Maybe fix the comment too.