$ opt -stats -mypassname < program.bc > /dev/null
... statistics output ...
+Note that in order to use the '``-stats``' option, LLVM must be
+compiled with assertions enabled.
+
When running ``opt`` on a C file from the SPEC benchmark suite, it gives a
report that looks like this:
LLVM adds a few new options to choose from. Pick the first option on this list
that will do what you need, they are ordered according to their relative cost.
-Note that is is generally preferred to *not* pass strings around as ``const
+Note that it is generally preferred to *not* pass strings around as ``const
char*``'s. These have a number of problems, including the fact that they
cannot represent embedded nul ("\0") characters, and do not have a length
available efficiently. The general replacement for '``const char*``' is
Function *F = ...;
- for (User *U : GV->users()) {
+ for (User *U : F->users()) {
if (Instruction *Inst = dyn_cast<Instruction>(U)) {
errs() << "F is used in instruction:\n";
errs() << *Inst << "\n";
the LSBit set. (Portability is relying on the fact that all known compilers
place the ``vptr`` in the first word of the instances.)
+.. _polymorphism:
+
+Designing Type Hiercharies and Polymorphic Interfaces
+-----------------------------------------------------
+
+There are two different design patterns that tend to result in the use of
+virtual dispatch for methods in a type hierarchy in C++ programs. The first is
+a genuine type hierarchy where different types in the hierarchy model
+a specific subset of the functionality and semantics, and these types nest
+strictly within each other. Good examples of this can be seen in the ``Value``
+or ``Type`` type hierarchies.
+
+A second is the desire to dispatch dynamically across a collection of
+polymorphic interface implementations. This latter use case can be modeled with
+virtual dispatch and inheritance by defining an abstract interface base class
+which all implementations derive from and override. However, this
+implementation strategy forces an **"is-a"** relationship to exist that is not
+actually meaningful. There is often not some nested hierarchy of useful
+generalizations which code might interact with and move up and down. Instead,
+there is a singular interface which is dispatched across a range of
+implementations.
+
+The preferred implementation strategy for the second use case is that of
+generic programming (sometimes called "compile-time duck typing" or "static
+polymorphism"). For example, a template over some type parameter ``T`` can be
+instantiated across any particular implementation that conforms to the
+interface or *concept*. A good example here is the highly generic properties of
+any type which models a node in a directed graph. LLVM models these primarily
+through templates and generic programming. Such templates include the
+``LoopInfoBase`` and ``DominatorTreeBase``. When this type of polymorphism
+truly needs **dynamic** dispatch you can generalize it using a technique
+called *concept-based polymorphism*. This pattern emulates the interfaces and
+behaviors of templates using a very limited form of virtual dispatch for type
+erasure inside its implementation. You can find examples of this technique in
+the ``PassManager.h`` system, and there is a more detailed introduction to it
+by Sean Parent in several of his talks and papers:
+
+#. `Inheritance Is The Base Class of Evil
+ <http://channel9.msdn.com/Events/GoingNative/2013/Inheritance-Is-The-Base-Class-of-Evil>`_
+ - The GoingNative 2013 talk describing this technique, and probably the best
+ place to start.
+#. `Value Semantics and Concepts-based Polymorphism
+ <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_BpMYeUFXv8>`_ - The C++Now! 2012 talk
+ describing this technique in more detail.
+#. `Sean Parent's Papers and Presentations
+ <http://github.com/sean-parent/sean-parent.github.com/wiki/Papers-and-Presentations>`_
+ - A Github project full of links to slides, video, and sometimes code.
+
+When deciding between creating a type hierarchy (with either tagged or virtual
+dispatch) and using templates or concepts-based polymorphism, consider whether
+there is some refinement of an abstract base class which is a semantically
+meaningful type on an interface boundary. If anything more refined than the
+root abstract interface is meaningless to talk about as a partial extension of
+the semantic model, then your use case likely fits better with polymorphism and
+you should avoid using virtual dispatch. However, there may be some exigent
+circumstances that require one technique or the other to be used.
+
+If you do need to introduce a type hierarchy, we prefer to use explicitly
+closed type hierarchies with manual tagged dispatch and/or RTTI rather than the
+open inheritance model and virtual dispatch that is more common in C++ code.
+This is because LLVM rarely encourages library consumers to extend its core
+types, and leverages the closed and tag-dispatched nature of its hierarchies to
+generate significantly more efficient code. We have also found that a large
+amount of our usage of type hierarchies fits better with tag-based pattern
+matching rather than dynamic dispatch across a common interface. Within LLVM we
+have built custom helpers to facilitate this design. See this document's
+section on :ref:`isa and dyn_cast <isa>` and our :doc:`detailed document
+<HowToSetUpLLVMStyleRTTI>` which describes how you can implement this
+pattern for use with the LLVM helpers.
+
+.. _abi_breaking_checks:
+
+ABI Breaking Checks
+-------------------
+
+Checks and asserts that alter the LLVM C++ ABI are predicated on the
+preprocessor symbol `LLVM_ENABLE_ABI_BREAKING_CHECKS` -- LLVM
+libraries built with `LLVM_ENABLE_ABI_BREAKING_CHECKS` are not ABI
+compatible LLVM libraries built without it defined. By default,
+turning on assertions also turns on `LLVM_ENABLE_ABI_BREAKING_CHECKS`
+so a default +Asserts build is not ABI compatible with a
+default -Asserts build. Clients that want ABI compatibility
+between +Asserts and -Asserts builds should use the CMake or autoconf
+build systems to set `LLVM_ENABLE_ABI_BREAKING_CHECKS` independently
+of `LLVM_ENABLE_ASSERTIONS`.
+
.. _coreclasses:
The Core LLVM Class Hierarchy Reference
Subclass of SequentialType for vector types. A vector type is similar to an
ArrayType but is distinguished because it is a first class type whereas
ArrayType is not. Vector types are used for vector operations and are usually
- small vectors of of an integer or floating point type.
+ small vectors of an integer or floating point type.
``StructType``
Subclass of DerivedTypes for struct types.
projects / oota-llvm.git / blobdiff