thr3ads.net - llvm dev - [LLVMdev] Optimization feasibility [Dec 2007]

If this information is useful, please help other people find it:
Share via:

Joachim Durchholz

2007-Dec-24 21:43 UTC

[LLVMdev] Optimization feasibility

Hi all,

I'm in a very preliminary phase of a language project which requires 
some specific optimizations to be reasonably efficient.

LLVM already looks very good; I'd just like to know whether I can push 
these optimizations through LLVM to the JIT phase (which, as far as I 
understand the docs, is a pretty powerful part of LLVM).

The optimizations that I need to get to work are:

* Tail call elimination.
* Constant evaluation. To implement this, the JIT phase would have to
   evaluate the constant and somehow store it so that future runs don't
   need to reevaluate it.
* Dead code elimination, enabled by constant evaluation.
* Monomorphisation, i.e. constant evaluation may establish that some
   data structures aren't polymorphic, so it would be worth generating
   code that keeps integers in registers instead of generating boxed
   representations on the heap. Again, constant evaluation can enable
   this optimization.

I'll be happy to know the answer for each optimization, whether it's 
"yes", "not yet", or a flat "no".
The answers probably won't affect whether I use LLVM. They will, 
however, tell me how much work I can shove off to LLVM ;-)

Regards,
Jo

Gordon Henriksen

2007-Dec-25 02:29 UTC

head link

[LLVMdev] Optimization feasibility

Hi Jo,

On 2007-12-24, at 14:43, Joachim Durchholz wrote:
> I'm in a very preliminary phase of a language project which requires  
> some specific optimizations to be reasonably efficient.
>
> LLVM already looks very good; I'd just like to know whether I can  
> push these optimizations through LLVM to the JIT phase (which, as  
> far as I understand the docs, is a pretty powerful part of LLVM).
Cool.
> The optimizations that I need to get to work are:
>
> * Tail call elimination.
LLVM already has tail call elimination (i.e., it will transform direct  
recursion into iteration). It also supports emitting tail calls on  
x86, but its support is somewhat weak. This is partially mandated by  
calling conventions, but those implementing functional languages might  
be disappointed. Check the llvmdev archives for details.
> * Constant evaluation. To implement this, the JIT phase would have  
> to evaluate the constant and somehow store it so that future runs  
> don't need to reevaluate it.
> * Dead code elimination, enabled by constant evaluation.
LLVM has both constant propagation and dead code elimination, but if  
your language has a high-level functional concept of "constant" here  
(or you're referring to memoization), your runtime may need to help  
LLVM out.
> * Monomorphisation, i.e. constant evaluation may establish that some  
> data structures aren't polymorphic, so it would be worth generating  
> code that keeps integers in registers instead of generating boxed  
> representations on the heap. Again, constant evaluation can enable  
> this optimization.
LLVM will not rearrange your high-level data structures. If your  
runtime finds a more representation, it can modify the IR and use  
LLVM's JIT to recompile a more specialized function, though.

— Gordon

Arnold Schwaighofer

2007-Dec-25 17:07 UTC

head link

[LLVMdev] Optimization feasibility

On 25 Dec 2007, at 03:29, Gordon Henriksen wrote:
> Hi Jo,
>
> On 2007-12-24, at 14:43, Joachim Durchholz wrote:
>
>> I'm in a very preliminary phase of a language project which
requires
>> some specific optimizations to be reasonably efficient.
>>
>> LLVM already looks very good; I'd just like to know whether I can
>> push these optimizations through LLVM to the JIT phase (which, as
>> far as I understand the docs, is a pretty powerful part of LLVM).
>
> Cool.
>
>> The optimizations that I need to get to work are:
>>
>> * Tail call elimination.
> It also supports emitting tail calls on
> x86, but its support is somewhat weak. This is partially mandated by
> calling conventions, but those implementing functional languages might
> be disappointed. Check the llvmdev archives for details.
>Hi Joachim,
I am  the person to blame for tail call support and its deficiencies  
on x86.

The current constraints for tail calls on x86 are:

Max 2 registers are used for argument passing (inreg). Tail call  
optimization is performed
provided:
//                * option tailcallopt is enabled
//                * caller/callee are fastcc
//                * elf/pic is disabled (this should be the case on  
mac os x?) OR
//                * elf/pic enabled + callee is in the same module as  
caller + callee has
//                  visibility protected or hidden


an (pointless) example would be:


<<---tailcall.ll --->>
@.str = internal constant [12 x i8] c"result: %d\0A\00"		; <[12 x
i8]
*> [#uses=1]

define fastcc i32 @tailcallee(i32 %a1, i32 %a2, i32 %a3, i32 %a4) {
entry:
         ret i32 %a3
}

define fastcc i32 @tailcaller(i32 %in1, i32 %in2) {
entry:
         %tmp11 = tail call fastcc i32 @tailcallee( i32 %in1, i32 % 
in2, i32 %in1,
  i32 %in2 )             ; <i32> [#uses=1]
         ret i32 %tmp11
}



define i32 @main(i32 %argc, i8** %argv) {
entry:
	%argc_addr = alloca i32		; <i32*> [#uses=1]
	%argv_addr = alloca i8**		; <i8***> [#uses=1]
	%retval = alloca i32, align 4		; <i32*> [#uses=2]
	%tmp = alloca i32, align 4		; <i32*> [#uses=2]
	%res = alloca i32, align 4		; <i32*> [#uses=2]
	"alloca point" = bitcast i32 0 to i32		; <i32> [#uses=0]
	store i32 %argc, i32* %argc_addr
	store i8** %argv, i8*** %argv_addr
	%tmp1 = call fastcc i32 @tailcaller( i32 1, i32 2)		; <i32> [#uses=1]
	store i32 %tmp1, i32* %res
	%tmp2 = getelementptr [12 x i8]* @.str, i32 0, i32 0		; <i8*> [#uses=1]
	%tmp3 = load i32* %res		; <i32> [#uses=1]
	%tmp4 = call i32 (i8*, ...)* @printf( i8* %tmp2, i32 %tmp3 )		;  
<i32> [#uses=0]
	store i32 0, i32* %tmp
	%tmp5 = load i32* %tmp		; <i32> [#uses=1]
	store i32 %tmp5, i32* %retval
	br label %return

return:		; preds = %entry
	%retval6 = load i32* %retval		; <i32> [#uses=1]
	ret i32 %retval6
}

declare i32 @printf(i8*, ...)
<<---tailcall.ll --->>

x86Shell:>  llvm-as < tailcall.ll | llc  -tailcallopt | gcc -x  
assembler -
x86Shell:> ./a.out

if you have got any questions regarding tail call stuff  i would be  
happy to help

regards arnold

Joachim Durchholz

2007-Dec-25 17:18 UTC

head link

[LLVMdev] Optimization feasibility

Gordon Henriksen schrieb:> Hi Jo,
> 
> On 2007-12-24, at 14:43, Joachim Durchholz wrote:
> 
>> I'm in a very preliminary phase of a language project which
requires
>> some specific optimizations to be reasonably efficient.
>>
>> LLVM already looks very good; I'd just like to know whether I can  
>> push these optimizations through LLVM to the JIT phase (which, as  
>> far as I understand the docs, is a pretty powerful part of LLVM).
> 
> Cool.
> 
>> The optimizations that I need to get to work are:
>>
>> * Tail call elimination.
> 
> LLVM already has tail call elimination (i.e., it will transform direct  
> recursion into iteration). It also supports emitting tail calls on  
> x86, but its support is somewhat weak. This is partially mandated by  
> calling conventions, but those implementing functional languages might  
> be disappointed. Check the llvmdev archives for details.
I'm not too picky. Unless there are structural reasons that tail call 
support is weak, I think this can be improved if and when the need comes.
>> * Constant evaluation. To implement this, the JIT phase would have  
>> to evaluate the constant and somehow store it so that future runs  
>> don't need to reevaluate it.
>> * Dead code elimination, enabled by constant evaluation.
> 
> LLVM has both constant propagation and dead code elimination, but if  
> your language has a high-level functional concept of "constant"
here
> (or you're referring to memoization), your runtime may need to help  
> LLVM out.
If LLVM *can* be helped out, that's enough.
>> * Monomorphisation, i.e. constant evaluation may establish that some  
>> data structures aren't polymorphic, so it would be worth generating
>> code that keeps integers in registers instead of generating boxed  
>> representations on the heap. Again, constant evaluation can enable  
>> this optimization.
> 
> LLVM will not rearrange your high-level data structures.
Of course not. LLVM is supposed to be low-level after all :-)
> If your runtime finds a more representation, it can modify the IR and
> use LLVM's JIT to recompile a more specialized function, though.
Fair enough. Self-modifying code isn't exactly what will make virus 
scanners and the like happy, but I doubt there's a good way for caching 
JIT results without making them unhappy, so there...

Anyway, as I said: LLVM is a good candidate, and I think I have at least 
a rough ideas how much leverage it will give me.
I'll be back when I have more to report.
And, of course, as questions arise :-)

Regards,
Jo

Seemingly Similar Threads

Search for more seemingly similar threads

llvm dev - Dec 2007 - [LLVMdev] Optimization feasibility

[LLVMdev] Optimization feasibility

[LLVMdev] Optimization feasibility

[LLVMdev] Optimization feasibility

[LLVMdev] Optimization feasibility

Seemingly Similar Threads