| # Bugpoint Redesign | |
| Author: Diego Treviño (diegotf@google.com) | |
| Date: 2019-06-05 | |
| Status: Draft | |
| ## Introduction | |
| As use of bugpoint has grown several areas of improvement have been identified | |
| through years of use: confusing to use, slow, it doesn’t always produce high | |
| quality test cases, etc. This document proposes a new approach with a narrower | |
| focus: minimization of IR test cases. | |
| ## Proposed New Design | |
| ### Narrow focus: test-case reduction | |
| The main focus will be a code reduction strategy to obtain much smaller test | |
| cases that still have the same property as the original one. This will be done | |
| via classic delta debugging and by adding some IR-specific reductions (e.g. | |
| replacing globals, removing unused instructions, etc), similar to what | |
| already exists, but with more in-depth minimization. | |
| Granted, if the community differs on this proposal, the legacy code could still | |
| be present in the tool, but with the caveat of still being documented and | |
| designed towards delta reduction. | |
| ### Command-Line Options | |
| We are proposing to reduce the plethora of bugpoint’s options to just two: an | |
| interesting-ness test and the arguments for said test, similar to other delta | |
| reduction tools such as CReduce, Delta, and Lithium; the tool should feel less | |
| cluttered, and there should also be no uncertainty about how to operate it. | |
| The interesting-ness test that’s going to be run to reduce the code is given | |
| by name: | |
| `--test=<test_name>` | |
| If a `--test` option is not given, the program exits; this option is similar | |
| to bugpoint’s current `-compile-custom` option, which lets the user run a | |
| custom script. | |
| The interesting-ness test would be defined as a script that returns 0 when the | |
| IR achieves a user-defined behaviour (e.g. failure to compile on clang) and a | |
| nonzero value when otherwise. Leaving the user the freedom to determine what is | |
| and isn’t interesting to the tool, and thus, streamlining the process of | |
| reducing a test-case. | |
| If the test accepts any arguments (excluding the input ll/bc file), they are | |
| given via the following flag: | |
| `--test_args=<test_arguments>` | |
| If unspecified, the test is run as given. It’s worth noting that the input file | |
| would be passed as a parameter to the test, similar how `-compile-custom` | |
| currently operates. | |
| ### Implementation | |
| The tool would behave similar to CReduce’s functionality in that it would have a | |
| list of passes that try to minimize the given test-case. We should be able to | |
| modularize the tool’s behavior, as well as making it easier to maintain and | |
| expand. | |
| The first version of this redesign would try to: | |
| * Discard functions, instructions and metadata that don’t influence the | |
| interesting-ness test | |
| * Remove unused parameters from functions | |
| * Eliminate unvisited conditional paths | |
| * Rename variables to more regular ones (such as “a”, “b”, “c”, etc.) | |
| Once these passes are implemented, more meaningful reductions (such as type | |
| reduction) would be added to the tool, to even further reduce IR. | |
| ## Background on historical bugpoint issues | |
| ### Root Cause Analysis | |
| Presently, bugpoint takes a long time to find the source problem in a given IR | |
| file, mainly due to the fact that it tries to debug the input by running | |
| various strategies to classify the bug, which in turn run multiple optimizer | |
| and compilation passes over the input, taking up a lot of time. Furthermore, | |
| when the IR crashes, it tries to reduce it by performing some sub-optimal | |
| passes (e.g. a lot of unreachable blocks), and sometimes even fails to minimize | |
| at all. | |
| ### "Quirky" Interface | |
| Bugpoint’s current interface overwhelms and confuses the user, the help screen | |
| alone ends up confusing rather providing guidance. And, not only are there | |
| numerous features and options, but some of them also work in unexpected ways | |
| and most of the time the user ends up using a custom script. Pruning and | |
| simplifying the interface will be worth considering in order to make the tool | |
| more useful in the general case and easier to maintain. |