thr3ads.net - llvm dev - [llvm-dev] RFC: Dynamically Allocated "Callee Saved Registers" Lists [Jan 2017]

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

Ben Simhon, Oren via llvm-dev

2017-Jan-12 09:03 UTC

[llvm-dev] RFC: Dynamically Allocated "Callee Saved Registers" Lists

Hi Mehdi,

I think that the subject of the RFC is misleading.
The true problem that we are trying to solve is to remove returned/passed
arguments from the regmask (According to the calling convention).
IPRA and CC updated RegMask can’t use the same mechanism because they contradict
each other.

I think that the following analog will help to explain why I think that a reuse
is redundant:
Let’s assume two different functions (FuncA and FuncB) need to allocate an array
of items of type X.
FuncA allocates XarrayA that contains all X items that are big.
FuncB allocates XarrayB that contains all X items that are square shaped.
Should both of them use the same array?!

I think that they shouldn’t. Same in our case.
It is true that both structures save register masks but each register mask
represent a different type of register masks.
I don’t see how we can change the mechanism to make IPRA and my updated regmask
mutual exclusive.

I hope it clarifies what I am trying to say.

Thanks,
Oren


From: mehdi.amini at apple.com [mailto:mehdi.amini at apple.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2017 09:52
To: Ben Simhon, Oren <oren.ben.simhon at intel.com>
Cc: llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] RFC: Dynamically Allocated "Callee Saved
Registers" Lists

Hi Ben,


On Jan 11, 2017, at 11:26 PM, Ben Simhon, Oren <oren.ben.simhon at
intel.com<mailto:oren.ben.simhon at intel.com>> wrote:

Hi Mehdi,

It is true that both IPRA and the proposed mechanism save RegMasks.
So you might say that the data structure in the immutable pass should be reused,

This is not exactly what I’m saying, let me clarify: I’m saying if the two
high-level features needs the same underlying feature (dynamic regmask), then
the underlying feature should be shared (unless there is a good reason, which I
very well may have missed). Whether the current way of doing it is flexible
enough or the most convenient for what you want does not invalidate my point
about sharing it, it just has to be adapted / transformed in



but this is the only similarity.

Even this similarity is not exactly true.
I save register masks that doesn’t use passed/returned arguments while IPRA
saves register masks for modified registers.
So how can they share the same mechanism?

I’m not sure I understand what you refer to by "save register masks that
doesn’t use passed/returned arguments", but keep in mind that I don’t play
frequently with the MI level.
I just skimmed through you original RFC, and it mentions "The proposed
solution is to dynamically allocate the CSR lists”, which I thought is exactly
what’s done in IPRA.

Back to my point: outside of implementation details: my high-level impression is
that it seems we need a "dynamic calling convention” mechanism in both case
(IPRA and __regcall CC), and I’d approach this layer/feature independently as
such (not just as the minimum ad-hoc structure to support one particular CC).

Best,

Mehdi




Regarding immutable pass, I am not familiar with immutable passes that hold
correctness information (can you share an example?).

Thanks,
Oren

From: mehdi.amini at apple.com<mailto:mehdi.amini at apple.com>
[mailto:mehdi.amini at apple.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2017 20:22
To: Ben Simhon, Oren <oren.ben.simhon at intel.com<mailto:oren.ben.simhon
at intel.com>>
Cc: llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org<mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] RFC: Dynamically Allocated "Callee Saved
Registers" Lists


On Jan 11, 2017, at 7:06 AM, Ben Simhon, Oren <oren.ben.simhon at
intel.com<mailto:oren.ben.simhon at intel.com>> wrote:

Hi Mehdi,

I wasn’t familiar with IPRA before, thank you for bringing it up.
After studying it, I have to say that IPRA is a wonderful idea and is well
implemented.

I tried to reuse the mechanism for the last couple of days.
I implemented a solution using IPRA mechanism and encountered few issues:

I didn’t know if the implementation would be suited perfectly for your need, but
the similarity makes me thing that it is not desirable to have two components
doing “almost the same thing” there.




1.      IPRA uses immutable analysis pass called “PhysicalRegisterUsageInfo”.
The usage of such passes should be optimization only.
Can you elaborate what makes you say so? Do we a rule that analysis can’t be
used to store `correctness` informations?





In my case, this is a functional issue. The analysis must run in order to be
compatible with other compilers.

2.      IPRA passes are not enabled by default and when they are enabled many
tests fail due to various reasons (mainly because the CallGraph bottom up
approach).

3.      The manipulated RegMasks generated using RegUsageInfoCollector are very
different than the manipulated RegMasks that I need. It will be an abuse to
change the current pass implementation. So new pass is required.

4.      When dumping the MIR after running IPRA passes, assertion is raised
because the RegMask name is unknown (same issue that I face with my solution –
see “open Issue”).
I might reuse the analysis pass of IPRA instead of saving the RegMask inside the
Machine Function but as mentioned by #1 it is not recommended.
Thus I believe that using my current suggestion is more suitable for the issue I
am resolving.

At this point, I didn’t grasp in what you’re raising above what justify not
sharing the infrastructure between IPRA and what you need (again I’m not saying
it is ready to do exactly what you need, but I’m against duplicating similar
mechanism instead of refactoring).

—
Mehdi






Best Regards,
Oren

From: mehdi.amini at apple.com<mailto:mehdi.amini at apple.com>
[mailto:mehdi.amini at apple.com]
Sent: Monday, January 09, 2017 18:38
To: Ben Simhon, Oren <oren.ben.simhon at intel.com<mailto:oren.ben.simhon
at intel.com>>
Cc: llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org<mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] RFC: Dynamically Allocated "Callee Saved
Registers" Lists


On Jan 9, 2017, at 1:09 AM, Ben Simhon, Oren via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org<mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote:

Dynamically Allocated “Callee Saved Registers” Lists

Each Calling convention (CC) defines a static list of registers that should be
preserved by a callee function. All other registers should be saved by the
caller.
Some CCs use additional condition: If the register is used for passing/returning
arguments – the caller needs to save it - even if it is part of the Callee Saved
Registers (CSR) list.
For example consider the following function:
void __regcall func(int a, int b, int c, int d, int e);
According to RegCall CC, parameters d and e should reside in registers EDI and
ESI. The problem is that these registers also appear in the CSR list of RegCall
calling convention. So, since the registers were used to pass arguments the
callee doesn’t have to preserve their values.
The current LLVM implementation doesn’t support it. It will save a register if
it is part of the static CSR list and will not care if the register is
passed/returned by the callee.

There are two types of static CSR lists:
1.      register mask array of the CSRs (including register aliases)
2.      register CSR list

The proposed solution is to dynamically allocate the CSR lists (Only for these
CCs). The lists will be updated with actual registers that should be saved by
the callee.

Since we need the allocated lists to live as long as the function exists, the
list should reside inside the Machine Register Info (MRI) which is a property of
the Machine Function and managed by it (and has the same life span).

The lists should be saved in the MRI and populated upon LowerCall and
LowerFormalArguments.

Have you looked at how IPRA is implemented? It needs to dynamically allocate the
register mask as well, so unless there is something fundamentally different I’m
missing, we should share the mechanism.

—
Mehdi









Open Issue

Machine Instructions (MI) have intermediate representation that can be printed
and later on parsed to recreate the MIs.
MI printer and parser expect the Register Mask array pointer to point to a
predefined (static) list of RegMasks. Those lists are retrieved from auto
generated file x86GenRegisterInfo.inc using the functions: getRegMasks() and
getRegMaskNames().
However, since we create a dynamically allocated register mask, its pointer will
not reside in the static lists and no corresponding name could be found.
In that case, the MIPrinter will fail to emit the RegMask Name.

I would appreciate the community opinion regarding my solution and regarding
possible solutions to the open issue.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Intel Israel (74) Limited
This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for
the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution
by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.
_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org<mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Intel Israel (74) Limited
This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for
the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution
by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Intel Israel (74) Limited
This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for
the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution
by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Intel Israel (74) Limited

This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for
the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution
by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20170112/2ef55690/attachment.html>

Mehdi Amini via llvm-dev

2017-Jan-12 10:05 UTC

head link

[llvm-dev] RFC: Dynamically Allocated "Callee Saved Registers" Lists

> On Jan 12, 2017, at 1:03 AM, Ben Simhon, Oren <oren.ben.simhon at
intel.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Mehdi,
>  
> I think that the subject of the RFC is misleading.
> The true problem that we are trying to solve is to remove returned/passed
arguments from the regmask (According to the calling convention).
> IPRA and CC updated RegMask can’t use the same mechanism because they
contradict each other.
Can you clarify in which way to they contradict each other? 
Do you have a patch I could look at? (Or could point at some piece of code in
LLVM?)
>  
> I think that the following analog will help to explain why I think that a
reuse is redundant:
> Let’s assume two different functions (FuncA and FuncB) need to allocate an
array of items of type X.
> FuncA allocates XarrayA that contains all X items that are big.
> FuncB allocates XarrayB that contains all X items that are square shaped.
> Should both of them use the same array?!
They may not use the same array, but they’ll both use malloc() :-)

— 
Mehdi


>  
> I think that they shouldn’t. Same in our case.
> It is true that both structures save register masks but each register mask
represent a different type of register masks.
> I don’t see how we can change the mechanism to make IPRA and my updated
regmask mutual exclusive.
>  
> I hope it clarifies what I am trying to say.
>  
> Thanks,
> Oren
>  
>   <>
> From: mehdi.amini at apple.com <mailto:mehdi.amini at apple.com>
[mailto:mehdi.amini at apple.com <mailto:mehdi.amini at apple.com>]
> Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2017 09:52
> To: Ben Simhon, Oren <oren.ben.simhon at intel.com
<mailto:oren.ben.simhon at intel.com>>
> Cc: llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
> Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] RFC: Dynamically Allocated "Callee Saved
Registers" Lists
>  
> Hi Ben,
>  
>  
> On Jan 11, 2017, at 11:26 PM, Ben Simhon, Oren <oren.ben.simhon at
intel.com <mailto:oren.ben.simhon at intel.com>> wrote:
>  
> Hi Mehdi,
>  
> It is true that both IPRA and the proposed mechanism save RegMasks.
> So you might say that the data structure in the immutable pass should be
reused,
>  
> This is not exactly what I’m saying, let me clarify: I’m saying if the two
high-level features needs the same underlying feature (dynamic regmask), then
the underlying feature should be shared (unless there is a good reason, which I
very well may have missed). Whether the current way of doing it is flexible
enough or the most convenient for what you want does not invalidate my point
about sharing it, it just has to be adapted / transformed in
>  
> 
> 
> but this is the only similarity.
>  
> Even this similarity is not exactly true.
> I save register masks that doesn’t use passed/returned arguments while IPRA
saves register masks for modified registers.
> So how can they share the same mechanism?
>  
> I’m not sure I understand what you refer to by "save register masks
that doesn’t use passed/returned arguments", but keep in mind that I don’t
play frequently with the MI level.
> I just skimmed through you original RFC, and it mentions "The proposed
solution is to dynamically allocate the CSR lists”, which I thought is exactly
what’s done in IPRA.
>  
> Back to my point: outside of implementation details: my high-level
impression is that it seems we need a "dynamic calling convention”
mechanism in both case (IPRA and __regcall CC), and I’d approach this
layer/feature independently as such (not just as the minimum ad-hoc structure to
support one particular CC).
>  
> Best,
>  
> Mehdi
>  
>  
>  
>  
> Regarding immutable pass, I am not familiar with immutable passes that hold
correctness information (can you share an example?).
>  
> Thanks,
> Oren
>  
> From: mehdi.amini at apple.com <mailto:mehdi.amini at apple.com>
[mailto:mehdi.amini at apple.com <mailto:mehdi.amini at apple.com>]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2017 20:22
> To: Ben Simhon, Oren <oren.ben.simhon at intel.com
<mailto:oren.ben.simhon at intel.com>>
> Cc: llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
> Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] RFC: Dynamically Allocated "Callee Saved
Registers" Lists
>  
>  
> On Jan 11, 2017, at 7:06 AM, Ben Simhon, Oren <oren.ben.simhon at
intel.com <mailto:oren.ben.simhon at intel.com>> wrote:
>  
> Hi Mehdi,
>  
> I wasn’t familiar with IPRA before, thank you for bringing it up.
> After studying it, I have to say that IPRA is a wonderful idea and is well
implemented.
>  
> I tried to reuse the mechanism for the last couple of days.
> I implemented a solution using IPRA mechanism and encountered few issues:
>  
> I didn’t know if the implementation would be suited perfectly for your
need, but the similarity makes me thing that it is not desirable to have two
components doing “almost the same thing” there.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.      IPRA uses immutable analysis pass called
“PhysicalRegisterUsageInfo”. The usage of such passes should be optimization
only.
> 
> Can you elaborate what makes you say so? Do we a rule that analysis can’t
be used to store `correctness` informations?
>  
> 
> 
> 
> In my case, this is a functional issue. The analysis must run in order to
be compatible with other compilers.
> 
> 2.      IPRA passes are not enabled by default and when they are enabled
many tests fail due to various reasons (mainly because the CallGraph bottom up
approach).
> 
> 3.      The manipulated RegMasks generated using RegUsageInfoCollector are
very different than the manipulated RegMasks that I need. It will be an abuse to
change the current pass implementation. So new pass is required.
> 
> 4.      When dumping the MIR after running IPRA passes, assertion is raised
because the RegMask name is unknown (same issue that I face with my solution –
see “open Issue”).
> 
> I might reuse the analysis pass of IPRA instead of saving the RegMask
inside the Machine Function but as mentioned by #1 it is not recommended.
> Thus I believe that using my current suggestion is more suitable for the
issue I am resolving.
>  
> At this point, I didn’t grasp in what you’re raising above what justify not
sharing the infrastructure between IPRA and what you need (again I’m not saying
it is ready to do exactly what you need, but I’m against duplicating similar
mechanism instead of refactoring).
>  
> — 
> Mehdi
>  
>  
> 
> 
> 
>  
> Best Regards,
> Oren
>  
> From: mehdi.amini at apple.com <mailto:mehdi.amini at apple.com>
[mailto:mehdi.amini at apple.com <mailto:mehdi.amini at apple.com>]
> Sent: Monday, January 09, 2017 18:38
> To: Ben Simhon, Oren <oren.ben.simhon at intel.com
<mailto:oren.ben.simhon at intel.com>>
> Cc: llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
> Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] RFC: Dynamically Allocated "Callee Saved
Registers" Lists
>  
>  
> On Jan 9, 2017, at 1:09 AM, Ben Simhon, Oren via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote:
>  
> Dynamically Allocated “Callee Saved Registers” Lists
>  
> 
> Each Calling convention (CC) defines a static list of registers that should
be preserved by a callee function. All other registers should be saved by the
caller.
> 
> Some CCs use additional condition: If the register is used for
passing/returning arguments – the caller needs to save it - even if it is part
of the Callee Saved Registers (CSR) list.
> 
> For example consider the following function:
> 
> void __regcall func(int a, int b, int c, int d, int e);
> 
> According to RegCall CC, parameters d and e should reside in registers EDI
and ESI. The problem is that these registers also appear in the CSR list of
RegCall calling convention. So, since the registers were used to pass arguments
the callee doesn’t have to preserve their values.
> 
> The current LLVM implementation doesn’t support it. It will save a register
if it is part of the static CSR list and will not care if the register is
passed/returned by the callee.
> 
>  
> 
> There are two types of static CSR lists: 
> 
> 1.      register mask array of the CSRs (including register aliases)
> 2.      register CSR list
>  
> The proposed solution is to dynamically allocate the CSR lists (Only for
these CCs). The lists will be updated with actual registers that should be saved
by the callee.
>  
> Since we need the allocated lists to live as long as the function exists,
the list should reside inside the Machine Register Info (MRI) which is a
property of the Machine Function and managed by it (and has the same life span).
>  
> The lists should be saved in the MRI and populated upon LowerCall and
LowerFormalArguments.
>  
> Have you looked at how IPRA is implemented? It needs to dynamically
allocate the register mask as well, so unless there is something fundamentally
different I’m missing, we should share the mechanism.
>  
> — 
> Mehdi
>  
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> Open Issue
>  
> 
> Machine Instructions (MI) have intermediate representation that can be
printed and later on parsed to recreate the MIs.
> 
> MI printer and parser expect the Register Mask array pointer to point to a
predefined (static) list of RegMasks. Those lists are retrieved from auto
generated file x86GenRegisterInfo.inc using the functions: getRegMasks() and
getRegMaskNames().
> 
> However, since we create a dynamically allocated register mask, its pointer
will not reside in the static lists and no corresponding name could be found.
> 
> In that case, the MIPrinter will fail to emit the RegMask Name.
> 
>  
> 
> I would appreciate the community opinion regarding my solution and
regarding possible solutions to the open issue.
> 
>  
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Intel Israel (74) Limited
> This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for
> the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution
> by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
> recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
<http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev>
>  
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Intel Israel (74) Limited
> This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for
> the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution
> by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
> recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.
>  
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Intel Israel (74) Limited
> This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for
> the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution
> by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
> recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.
>  
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Intel Israel (74) Limited
> 
> This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for
> the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution
> by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
> recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20170112/24ead07a/attachment-0001.html>

Ben Simhon, Oren via llvm-dev

2017-Jan-12 11:38 UTC

head link

[llvm-dev] RFC: Dynamically Allocated "Callee Saved Registers" Lists

Here in an example that explains the difference.

// Only declaration – No implementation
// Assume that the value is returned in EAX and the arguments are passed in EAX,
ECX, EDX, ESI, EDI.
int __regcall callee (int a, int b, int c, int d, int e);

// implemented in a different module
void caller() {
…
  x = callee(1,2,3,4,5);
…
}

What will be RegMask using IPRA register usage collector?
Callee Saved Registers (from the static register mask) minus RAX.
What should really be the RegMask?
Callee Saved Registers (from the static register mask) minus RAX, ESI and EDI
(and their sub registers).

Do you think that I should fix IPRA collector?

Even after fixing IPRA collector, I can’t run the collector nor the propogate
(because many tests are failing due to the bottom up traversal).
So the only thing in common will be the data structure inside the immutable
pass. Am I right?

You can see the phabricator review that I uploaded yesterday here:
https://reviews.llvm.org/D28566

Thanks,
Oren


From: mehdi.amini at apple.com [mailto:mehdi.amini at apple.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2017 12:05
To: Ben Simhon, Oren <oren.ben.simhon at intel.com>
Cc: llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] RFC: Dynamically Allocated "Callee Saved
Registers" Lists


On Jan 12, 2017, at 1:03 AM, Ben Simhon, Oren <oren.ben.simhon at
intel.com<mailto:oren.ben.simhon at intel.com>> wrote:

Hi Mehdi,

I think that the subject of the RFC is misleading.
The true problem that we are trying to solve is to remove returned/passed
arguments from the regmask (According to the calling convention).
IPRA and CC updated RegMask can’t use the same mechanism because they contradict
each other.

Can you clarify in which way to they contradict each other?
Do you have a patch I could look at? (Or could point at some piece of code in
LLVM?)



I think that the following analog will help to explain why I think that a reuse
is redundant:
Let’s assume two different functions (FuncA and FuncB) need to allocate an array
of items of type X.
FuncA allocates XarrayA that contains all X items that are big.
FuncB allocates XarrayB that contains all X items that are square shaped.
Should both of them use the same array?!

They may not use the same array, but they’ll both use malloc() :-)

—
Mehdi




I think that they shouldn’t. Same in our case.
It is true that both structures save register masks but each register mask
represent a different type of register masks.
I don’t see how we can change the mechanism to make IPRA and my updated regmask
mutual exclusive.

I hope it clarifies what I am trying to say.

Thanks,
Oren


From: mehdi.amini at apple.com<mailto:mehdi.amini at apple.com>
[mailto:mehdi.amini at apple.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2017 09:52
To: Ben Simhon, Oren <oren.ben.simhon at intel.com<mailto:oren.ben.simhon
at intel.com>>
Cc: llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org<mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] RFC: Dynamically Allocated "Callee Saved
Registers" Lists

Hi Ben,


On Jan 11, 2017, at 11:26 PM, Ben Simhon, Oren <oren.ben.simhon at
intel.com<mailto:oren.ben.simhon at intel.com>> wrote:

Hi Mehdi,

It is true that both IPRA and the proposed mechanism save RegMasks.
So you might say that the data structure in the immutable pass should be reused,

This is not exactly what I’m saying, let me clarify: I’m saying if the two
high-level features needs the same underlying feature (dynamic regmask), then
the underlying feature should be shared (unless there is a good reason, which I
very well may have missed). Whether the current way of doing it is flexible
enough or the most convenient for what you want does not invalidate my point
about sharing it, it just has to be adapted / transformed in




but this is the only similarity.

Even this similarity is not exactly true.
I save register masks that doesn’t use passed/returned arguments while IPRA
saves register masks for modified registers.
So how can they share the same mechanism?

I’m not sure I understand what you refer to by "save register masks that
doesn’t use passed/returned arguments", but keep in mind that I don’t play
frequently with the MI level.
I just skimmed through you original RFC, and it mentions "The proposed
solution is to dynamically allocate the CSR lists”, which I thought is exactly
what’s done in IPRA.

Back to my point: outside of implementation details: my high-level impression is
that it seems we need a "dynamic calling convention” mechanism in both case
(IPRA and __regcall CC), and I’d approach this layer/feature independently as
such (not just as the minimum ad-hoc structure to support one particular CC).

Best,

Mehdi




Regarding immutable pass, I am not familiar with immutable passes that hold
correctness information (can you share an example?).

Thanks,
Oren

From: mehdi.amini at apple.com<mailto:mehdi.amini at apple.com>
[mailto:mehdi.amini at apple.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2017 20:22
To: Ben Simhon, Oren <oren.ben.simhon at intel.com<mailto:oren.ben.simhon
at intel.com>>
Cc: llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org<mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] RFC: Dynamically Allocated "Callee Saved
Registers" Lists


On Jan 11, 2017, at 7:06 AM, Ben Simhon, Oren <oren.ben.simhon at
intel.com<mailto:oren.ben.simhon at intel.com>> wrote:

Hi Mehdi,

I wasn’t familiar with IPRA before, thank you for bringing it up.
After studying it, I have to say that IPRA is a wonderful idea and is well
implemented.

I tried to reuse the mechanism for the last couple of days.
I implemented a solution using IPRA mechanism and encountered few issues:

I didn’t know if the implementation would be suited perfectly for your need, but
the similarity makes me thing that it is not desirable to have two components
doing “almost the same thing” there.





1.      IPRA uses immutable analysis pass called “PhysicalRegisterUsageInfo”.
The usage of such passes should be optimization only.
Can you elaborate what makes you say so? Do we a rule that analysis can’t be
used to store `correctness` informations?






In my case, this is a functional issue. The analysis must run in order to be
compatible with other compilers.

2.      IPRA passes are not enabled by default and when they are enabled many
tests fail due to various reasons (mainly because the CallGraph bottom up
approach).

3.      The manipulated RegMasks generated using RegUsageInfoCollector are very
different than the manipulated RegMasks that I need. It will be an abuse to
change the current pass implementation. So new pass is required.

4.      When dumping the MIR after running IPRA passes, assertion is raised
because the RegMask name is unknown (same issue that I face with my solution –
see “open Issue”).
I might reuse the analysis pass of IPRA instead of saving the RegMask inside the
Machine Function but as mentioned by #1 it is not recommended.
Thus I believe that using my current suggestion is more suitable for the issue I
am resolving.

At this point, I didn’t grasp in what you’re raising above what justify not
sharing the infrastructure between IPRA and what you need (again I’m not saying
it is ready to do exactly what you need, but I’m against duplicating similar
mechanism instead of refactoring).

—
Mehdi







Best Regards,
Oren

From: mehdi.amini at apple.com<mailto:mehdi.amini at apple.com>
[mailto:mehdi.amini at apple.com]
Sent: Monday, January 09, 2017 18:38
To: Ben Simhon, Oren <oren.ben.simhon at intel.com<mailto:oren.ben.simhon
at intel.com>>
Cc: llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org<mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] RFC: Dynamically Allocated "Callee Saved
Registers" Lists


On Jan 9, 2017, at 1:09 AM, Ben Simhon, Oren via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org<mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote:

Dynamically Allocated “Callee Saved Registers” Lists

Each Calling convention (CC) defines a static list of registers that should be
preserved by a callee function. All other registers should be saved by the
caller.
Some CCs use additional condition: If the register is used for passing/returning
arguments – the caller needs to save it - even if it is part of the Callee Saved
Registers (CSR) list.
For example consider the following function:
void __regcall func(int a, int b, int c, int d, int e);
According to RegCall CC, parameters d and e should reside in registers EDI and
ESI. The problem is that these registers also appear in the CSR list of RegCall
calling convention. So, since the registers were used to pass arguments the
callee doesn’t have to preserve their values.
The current LLVM implementation doesn’t support it. It will save a register if
it is part of the static CSR list and will not care if the register is
passed/returned by the callee.

There are two types of static CSR lists:
1.      register mask array of the CSRs (including register aliases)
2.      register CSR list

The proposed solution is to dynamically allocate the CSR lists (Only for these
CCs). The lists will be updated with actual registers that should be saved by
the callee.

Since we need the allocated lists to live as long as the function exists, the
list should reside inside the Machine Register Info (MRI) which is a property of
the Machine Function and managed by it (and has the same life span).

The lists should be saved in the MRI and populated upon LowerCall and
LowerFormalArguments.

Have you looked at how IPRA is implemented? It needs to dynamically allocate the
register mask as well, so unless there is something fundamentally different I’m
missing, we should share the mechanism.

—
Mehdi










Open Issue

Machine Instructions (MI) have intermediate representation that can be printed
and later on parsed to recreate the MIs.
MI printer and parser expect the Register Mask array pointer to point to a
predefined (static) list of RegMasks. Those lists are retrieved from auto
generated file x86GenRegisterInfo.inc using the functions: getRegMasks() and
getRegMaskNames().
However, since we create a dynamically allocated register mask, its pointer will
not reside in the static lists and no corresponding name could be found.
In that case, the MIPrinter will fail to emit the RegMask Name.

I would appreciate the community opinion regarding my solution and regarding
possible solutions to the open issue.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Intel Israel (74) Limited
This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for
the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution
by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.
_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org<mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Intel Israel (74) Limited
This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for
the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution
by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Intel Israel (74) Limited
This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for
the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution
by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Intel Israel (74) Limited
This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for
the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution
by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Intel Israel (74) Limited

This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for
the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution
by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20170112/c50c255e/attachment.html>

Seemingly Similar Threads

Search for more maybe matching threads

llvm dev - Jan 2017 - RFC: Dynamically Allocated "Callee Saved Registers" Lists

[llvm-dev] RFC: Dynamically Allocated "Callee Saved Registers" Lists

[llvm-dev] RFC: Dynamically Allocated "Callee Saved Registers" Lists

[llvm-dev] RFC: Dynamically Allocated "Callee Saved Registers" Lists

Seemingly Similar Threads