On Jul 20, 2010, at 1:36 AM, Anton Korobeynikov wrote:>> used to make the code manipulating the union type "well typed". This >> approach seems work very well, is there really a need to keep union type in >> LLVM? > I think in its current state the unions should be removed from LLVM IR > in next release. It's pretty much unfinished and noone is willing to > work on them.I agree. -Chris
On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 8:34 AM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote:> > On Jul 20, 2010, at 1:36 AM, Anton Korobeynikov wrote: > > >> used to make the code manipulating the union type "well typed". This > >> approach seems work very well, is there really a need to keep union type > in > >> LLVM? > > I think in its current state the unions should be removed from LLVM IR > > in next release. It's pretty much unfinished and noone is willing to > > work on them. > > I agree. > > Unfortunately I wasn't able to take the union stuff much farther than Idid. Partly that was because my LLVM-related work has been on hiatus for the last 4 months or so due to various issues going on in my personal life. But it was also partly because I had reached the limit of my knowledge in this area, I wasn't able to delve deeply enough into the code generation side of LLVM to really understand what needed to be done to support unions. As far as converting a union into a C struct that is large enough to hold all possible types of the union, there are two minor problems associated with this approach: 1) For frontends that generate target-agnostic code, it is difficult to calculate how large this struct should be. (Which is larger, 3 int32s or two pointers? You don't know unless your frontend knows the size of a pointer.) In my case, I finally decided to abandon my goal of making my frontend completely target-neutral. While it's relatively easy to write a frontend that is 99% target-neutral with LLVM, that last 1% cannot be eliminated. 2) Extracting the values from the union require pointer casting, which means that the union cannot be an SSA value - it has to have an address. This probably isn't a big issue in languages like C++ which use unions infrequently, but other languages which use algebraic type systems might suffer a loss of performance due to the need to store union types in memory.> -Chris-- -- Talin -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20100720/d8d6f754/attachment.html>
On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 2:46 PM, Talin <viridia at gmail.com> wrote:> On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 8:34 AM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > >> >> On Jul 20, 2010, at 1:36 AM, Anton Korobeynikov wrote: >> >> >> used to make the code manipulating the union type "well typed". This >> >> approach seems work very well, is there really a need to keep union >> type in >> >> LLVM? >> > I think in its current state the unions should be removed from LLVM IR >> > in next release. It's pretty much unfinished and noone is willing to >> > work on them. >> >> I agree. >> >> Unfortunately I wasn't able to take the union stuff much farther than I > did. Partly that was because my LLVM-related work has been on hiatus for the > last 4 months or so due to various issues going on in my personal life. But > it was also partly because I had reached the limit of my knowledge in this > area, I wasn't able to delve deeply enough into the code generation side of > LLVM to really understand what needed to be done to support unions. > > As far as converting a union into a C struct that is large enough to hold > all possible types of the union, there are two minor problems associated > with this approach: > > 1) For frontends that generate target-agnostic code, it is difficult to > calculate how large this struct should be. (Which is larger, 3 int32s or two > pointers? You don't know unless your frontend knows the size of a pointer.) > In my case, I finally decided to abandon my goal of making my frontend > completely target-neutral. While it's relatively easy to write a frontend > that is 99% target-neutral with LLVM, that last 1% cannot be eliminated. >This is indeed a problem if a front-end or any pass has to compute the size of a type. For example, Sometimes I need to find out the size of a type in my pass, I then call TargetData.getTypeStorageSize() to get the size of a particular type. This practice will introduce architecture-dependent LLVM code. IMHO, LLVM cannot avoid this problem anyway, unless such function is removed or returns a ConstantExpr. Probably, LLVM has a function that returns a ConstantExpr type size, I'm just ignorant in this aspect. Another thought is can you delay the computing of the maximum storage of a union type by using a max operator? Your example can be represented as "struct { max([3xi32], [2xi8*],...) }", this approach will avoid deciding the size in front-ends. But again allowing TargetData.getTypeStorageSize() can compromise the architecture-neutrality goal.> > 2) Extracting the values from the union require pointer casting, which > means that the union cannot be an SSA value - it has to have an address. > This probably isn't a big issue in languages like C++ which use unions > infrequently, but other languages which use algebraic type systems might > suffer a loss of performance due to the need to store union types in memory. >Can mem2reg alleviate this problem? Cheers, Neal -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20100720/fce5c75c/attachment.html>
On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 2:46 PM, Talin <viridia at gmail.com> wrote:> 1) For frontends that generate target-agnostic code, it is difficult to > calculate how large this struct should be. (Which is larger, 3 int32s or two > pointers? You don't know unless your frontend knows the size of a pointer.) > In my case, I finally decided to abandon my goal of making my frontend > completely target-neutral. While it's relatively easy to write a frontend > that is 99% target-neutral with LLVM, that last 1% cannot be eliminated.+1 for more features that make it easier to generate target-agnostic IR, despite its difficulty. Speaking of incomplete features, most LLVM frontends do not use the va_arg intrinsics, but they have not been cut. Presumably they are useful for the same reason. Reid
I removed unions from mainline in r112356. -Chris On Jul 20, 2010, at 2:46 PM, Talin wrote:> On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 8:34 AM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > > On Jul 20, 2010, at 1:36 AM, Anton Korobeynikov wrote: > > >> used to make the code manipulating the union type "well typed". This > >> approach seems work very well, is there really a need to keep union type in > >> LLVM? > > I think in its current state the unions should be removed from LLVM IR > > in next release. It's pretty much unfinished and noone is willing to > > work on them. > > I agree. > > Unfortunately I wasn't able to take the union stuff much farther than I did. Partly that was because my LLVM-related work has been on hiatus for the last 4 months or so due to various issues going on in my personal life. But it was also partly because I had reached the limit of my knowledge in this area, I wasn't able to delve deeply enough into the code generation side of LLVM to really understand what needed to be done to support unions. > > As far as converting a union into a C struct that is large enough to hold all possible types of the union, there are two minor problems associated with this approach: > > 1) For frontends that generate target-agnostic code, it is difficult to calculate how large this struct should be. (Which is larger, 3 int32s or two pointers? You don't know unless your frontend knows the size of a pointer.) In my case, I finally decided to abandon my goal of making my frontend completely target-neutral. While it's relatively easy to write a frontend that is 99% target-neutral with LLVM, that last 1% cannot be eliminated. > > 2) Extracting the values from the union require pointer casting, which means that the union cannot be an SSA value - it has to have an address. This probably isn't a big issue in languages like C++ which use unions infrequently, but other languages which use algebraic type systems might suffer a loss of performance due to the need to store union types in memory. > > -Chris > > -- > -- Talin-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20100827/9cebf26f/attachment.html>
Reasonably Related Threads
- [LLVMdev] Union type, is it really used or necessary?
- [LLVMdev] Union type, is it really used or necessary?
- [LLVMdev] Union type, is it really used or necessary?
- [LLVMdev] Union type, is it really used or necessary?
- [LLVMdev] Union type, is it really used or necessary?