ChuanqiXu added inline comments.
================ Comment at: clang/test/CXX/modules-ts/basic/basic.def.odr/p4/module.cpp:5 // CHECK-DAG: @extern_var_exported = external {{(dso_local )?}}global -// CHECK-DAG: @inline_var_exported = linkonce_odr {{(dso_local )?}}global +// CHECK-DAG: @inline_var_exported = available_externally {{(dso_local )?}}global // CHECK-DAG: @const_var_exported = available_externally {{(dso_local )?}}constant i32 3, ---------------- dblaikie wrote: > ChuanqiXu wrote: > > ChuanqiXu wrote: > > > urnathan wrote: > > > > ChuanqiXu wrote: > > > > > urnathan wrote: > > > > > > ChuanqiXu wrote: > > > > > > > urnathan wrote: > > > > > > > > I don;t think this is correct. That should still be a linkonce > > > > > > > > odr, otherwise you'll get conflicts with other module > > > > > > > > implementation units. > > > > > > > It is still linkonce_odr in the module it get defined. See the > > > > > > > new added test case: inline-variable-in-module.cpp for example. > > > > > > > The attribute `available_externally` is equivalent to external > > > > > > > from the perspective of linker. See > > > > > > > https://llvm.org/docs/LangRef.html#linkage-types. According to > > > > > > > [dcl.inline]p7, inline variable attached to named module should > > > > > > > be defined in that domain. Note that the variable attached to > > > > > > > global module fragment and private module fragment shouldn't be > > > > > > > accessed outside the module, so it implies that all the variable > > > > > > > defined in the module could only be defined in the module unit > > > > > > > itself. > > > > > > There's a couple of issues with this. module.cppm is emitting a > > > > > > (linkonce) definition of inlne_var_exported, but only because it > > > > > > itself is ODR-using that variable. If you take out the ODR-use in > > > > > > noninline_exported, there is no longer a symbol emitted. > > > > > > > > > > > > But, even if you forced inline vars to be emitted in their > > > > > > defining-module's interface unit, that would be an ABI change. > > > > > > inline vars are emitted whereever ODR-used. They have no fixed > > > > > > home TU. Now, we could alter the ABI and allow interface units to > > > > > > define a home location for inline vars and similar entities (eg, > > > > > > vtables for keyless classes). But we'd need buy-in from other > > > > > > compilers to do that. > > > > > > > > > > > > FWIW such a discussion did come up early in implementing > > > > > > modules-ts, but we decided there was enough going on just getting > > > > > > the TS implemented. I'm fine with revisiting that, but it is a > > > > > > more significant change. > > > > > > > > > > > > And it wouldn't apply to (eg) templated variables, which of course > > > > > > could be instantiated anywhere. > > > > > Oh, now the key point here is what the correct behavior is instead of > > > > > the patch. Let's discuss it first. > > > > > > > > > > According to [[ http://eel.is/c++draft/dcl.inline#7 | [dcl.inline]p7 > > > > > ]], > > > > > > If an inline function or variable that is attached to a named > > > > > > module is declared in a definition domain, it shall be defined in > > > > > > that domain. > > > > > > > > > > I think the intention of the sentence is to define inline variable in > > > > > the module interface. So if it is required by the standard, I think > > > > > other compiler need to follow up. As I described in the summary, it > > > > > might be a difference between C++20 module and ModuleTS. Do you think > > > > > it is necessary to send the question to WG21? (I get the behavior > > > > > from reading the words. Maybe I misread or the word is not > > > > > intentional). > > > > > > > > > > Maybe the ABI standard group need to discuss what the linkage should > > > > > be. Now it may be weak_odr or linkonce_odr. It depends on how we > > > > > compile the file. If we compile the .cppm file directly, it would be > > > > > linkonce_odr. And if we compile it to *.pcm file first, it would be > > > > > weak_odr. I have registered an issue for this: > > > > > https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/53838. > > > > > Oh, now the key point here is what the correct behavior is instead of > > > > > the patch. Let's discuss it first. > > > > > > > > > > According to [[ http://eel.is/c++draft/dcl.inline#7 | [dcl.inline]p7 > > > > > ]], > > > > > > If an inline function or variable that is attached to a named > > > > > > module is declared in a definition domain, it shall be defined in > > > > > > that domain. > > > > > > > > > > I think the intention of the sentence is to define inline variable in > > > > > the module interface. So if it is required by the standard, I think > > > > > other compiler need to follow up. As I described in the summary, it > > > > > might be a difference between C++20 module and ModuleTS. Do you think > > > > > it is necessary to send the question to WG21? (I get the behavior > > > > > from reading the words. Maybe I misread or the word is not > > > > > intentional). > > > > > > > > You are reading more into the std than it says. The std specifies what > > > > /source code/ is meaningful. It says nothing about how a computation > > > > system might represent the program in another form. Most of the > > > > latter, for ahead-of-time translation, is at the discretion of compiler > > > > implementors. Part of that is the domain of the ABI, which specifies > > > > an interface to which different compilers may target, and then have > > > > compatibility at the object-file boundary. > > > > > > > > > Maybe the ABI standard group need to discuss what the linkage should > > > > > be. > > > > > > > > Correct. And right now there is no consensus to do anything different > > > > with such entities. > > > > The ABI (http://itanium-cxx-abi.github.io/cxx-abi/abi.html) 5.2 > > > > documents such vague-linkage entities. That section would need changes > > > > to bless what you are trying to do. > > > > > > > > > > > > You are reading more into the std than it says. The std specifies what > > > > /source code/ is meaningful. It says nothing about how a computation > > > > system might represent the program in another form. Most of the latter, > > > > for ahead-of-time translation, is at the discretion of compiler > > > > implementors. Part of that is the domain of the ABI, which specifies an > > > > interface to which different compilers may target, and then have > > > > compatibility at the object-file boundary. > > > > > > OK, your words make sense. In fact, I don't care much about whether or > > > not could we define `inline variable` in the module unit. The problem I > > > tried to solve is about `the definition static variable in module`. We > > > couldn't run a simple hello world example if we don't solve it. > > > > > > What I care about is where should we define inline function. I want to > > > define inline function in the module unit it get declared. And my theory > > > comes from [dcl.inline]p7. And our experiments show that it is the key > > > reason why module could speed up compilation. Our data shows that the > > > compilation could speed up about 40% for the feature. Since most of the > > > time consumed in compilation spent on the middle end, it is really not > > > significant to save the time in frontend. So it matters a lot if we could > > > avoid compiling same functions in middle end. > > > > > > Originally, I thought I am doing right. But from your words, we couldn't > > > do this until the ABI standard group get in consensus, right? > > > > > > Finally, I feel it is odd about [dcl.inline]p7. Since if it is not for > > > implementors, I feel it is meaningless for users. > > Or given that the CXXABI doesn't discuss the case about inline function in > > named module. Could we think it is a free space? Another question maybe > > where could we ask for opinion? WG21 or Itanium CXXABI group? > > Finally, I feel it is odd about [dcl.inline]p7. Since if it is not for > > implementors, I feel it is meaningless for users. > > Presumably that means that a user can't declare an inline function in a > module, and define it somewhere else (like in a private implementation unit) > - they must define it in the same definition domain it is declared. That's a > concrete requirement for the user, irrespective of what object-file-level > implementation strategy (where the definition gets emitted, what linkage is > used, etc) is used. > Presumably that means that a user can't declare an inline function in a > module, and define it somewhere else (like in a private implementation unit) > - they must define it in the same definition domain it is declared. That's a > concrete requirement for the user, irrespective of what object-file-level > implementation strategy (where the definition gets emitted, what linkage is > used, etc) is used. Oh, I get it. Thanks. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D119409/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D119409 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits