Project Stage 2 part 5 - Final


Intro 

As I mentioned in the previous post, I realized that I was doing it in a wrong way. And I saw other students progress, based on that code. I made some modifications in the pass implementation. I was looking for coped functions and their gimple representations, but I already had it printed. What I actually had to do was comparing the two different verions of one function, and then compare them, and then make a decision of whether it should be pruned or not.

Progress

This is my modified code.

unsigned int
pass_ctyler::execute (function *fun)
  {
    basic_block bb;

    int bb_cnt = 0, stmt_cnt = 0;


    FOR_EACH_BB_FN (bb, fun)
      {
        bb_cnt++;
        if (dump_file)
          {
            fprintf (dump_file, "===== Basic block count: %d =====\n", bb_cnt);

            if (!fun || !fun->decl)
            {
                fprintf(dump_file, "Invalid function object.\n");
            }
            else
            { // Print function name

                const char *func_name = IDENTIFIER_POINTER(DECL_NAME(fun->decl));
                fprintf(dump_file, "Function Name: %s\n", func_name);
            }
	  }

        for (gimple_stmt_iterator gsi = gsi_start_bb (bb); !gsi_end_p (gsi); gsi_next (&gsi))
          {
            gimple *g = gsi_stmt (gsi);
            stmt_cnt++;
            if (dump_file)
              {
                print_gimple_stmt (dump_file, g, 0, TDF_VOPS|TDF_MEMSYMS);
              }
         }
	 if (dump_file) {
	 fprintf(dump_file, "Statement Count: %d\n", stmt_cnt);
	 }
	}


    return 0;

    if (dump_file)
      {
        fprintf (dump_file, "\n\n##### End ctyler diagnostics, start regular dump of current gimple #####\n\n\n");
      }

  }


}


After building it, I generated dumpfiles from clone-test-core.c file.
And then I checked, clone-test-x86-prune-clone-test-core.c.263t.ctyler file.
compared them. The two copied gimple representations were very similar.
The only differences were the variable names.
Look at those test-result1.c file and test-result2.c file, and Compare them.
You can tell that they are almost the same, and need to be pruned.

However, the problem is How we can compare them in a programmatic way.
At first, I was thinking of comparing the number of statments, but this is
too naive approach. It might work sometimes, but this is not the correct way.
Moreover, there is a bigger Challenge.
They use different variable names. This will make it impossible to compare
them as a string.


This is how much I got into this project so far. We don't have enough time
before the project due date and the end of the semester. However, I will
definitely make more effort to make further progress if a little.




Comments

Post a Comment

popular posts in this blog

Project Stage 2 - part 2 : Clone-Pruning Analysis Pass

Intro In Project Stage 2, we are going to add a Pass to gcc compiler. Then, we will compile a code and see it generates a dump file that we added a pass for. Progress Let's start with adding a Pass to GCC compiler.  1. Open passes.def file in ~/project/gcc/gcc folder vi passes.def 2. You will See the codes as followings. Then, add a pass NEXT_PASS (pass_ctyler);  in line 444 440 NEXT_PASS (pass_cleanup_eh); 441 NEXT_PASS (pass_musttail); 442 NEXT_PASS (pass_lower_resx); 443 NEXT_PASS (pass_nrv); 444 NEXT_PASS (pass_ctyler); # Add your pass here # If you change the location, the order of compilation is changed; and it might have problem. # Since `pass_ctyler` is similar to `pass_nrv` I think it's safe to put here 445 NEXT_PASS (pass_gimple_isel); 446 NEXT_PASS (pass_harden_conditional_branches); 447 NEXT_PASS (pass_harden_compares); 448 NEXT_PASS (pass_warn_access, /*early=*/false); ...
Read more

Project Stage 2 part 4 - Testing clone-test-core.c file with Modified GCC file and making further modification

Intro  In the previous post, we modified to make it print function names; Now, we are going to test it with given clone-test-core.c file and also we will try to make further changes to display more information such as cloned function and gimple representation. Progress First, I tested the provided code without making any modifications, and the results are as follows: ;; Function sum_sample (sum_sample, funcdef_no=6, decl_uid=3859, cgraph_uid=7, symbol_order=6) === Function 1 Name '__builtin_cpu_supports' === === Function 2 Name '__builtin_cpu_init' === === Function 3 Name 'scale_samples.resolver' === === Function 4 Name 'scale_samples' === === Function 5 Name 'scale_samples.popcnt' === === Function 6 Name 'printf' === === Function 7 Name 'vol_createsample' === === Function 8 Name 'calloc' === === Function 9 Name 'main' === === Function 10 Name 'scale_samples' === === Function 11 Name 'sum_sample' =...
Read more

Project Stage 2 part 3 - Compile a program with revised GCC

  Intro In this post, we are going to use the GCC that we modified. Then, we will compile a code and see it generates a dump file by the pass we added. Progress 1. I will first test compiling my test program. Here is my simple C program. #include <stdio.h> int main() { int sum = 0; // For loop to add numbers from 1 to 5 for (int i = 1; i <= 5; i++) { sum += i; // Add i to sum // If statement to check if the number is even or odd if (i % 2 == 0) { printf("%d is even\n", i); } else { printf("%d is odd\n", i); } } printf("Sum of numbers from 1 to 5 is: %d\n", sum); return 0; } 2. I compiled the prgoram gcc -fdump-tree-all test.c -o test And this generated the following dump file as well as other dump files test.c.263t.ctyler 3. Check the content of the dump file. ===== Basic block count: 1 ===== ----- Statement count: 1 ----- sum_7 = 0; ----- Statement count...
Read more