llvm dev - Aug 2008 - [LLVMdev] Casting between address spaces and address space semantics

Hi Mon Ping,
> I don't have a problem having another class, TargetAddrSpace, to store
this
> information.  However, I don't think it make sense being a standalone
pass.
>  Address spaces seems to part of the TargetData and it seems more natural 
> to ask the TargetData to return the TargetAddrSpace object  (similar to 
> struct layout) to describe the relationships between address spaces.
This is pretty much what I did in my first patch, but Chris didn't like it.
Currently, the TargetData class can be completely described using it's
string
representation (which is also stored inside a module). Adding address space
information to target data breaks this, unless we also make a string
representation of the address spaces that we can put in a module.

I think that having a seperate class is somewhat cleaner, since it also makes
sure that this info is only made available to the passes that actually use it.
> BTW, there is a comment in TargetAddrspaces.h that indicate the default is
> that all address spaces are equivalent. I assume you meant disjoint here.
Uh, yeah :-)
>> The last part of this patch is an addition to InstCombine to make use
of
>> this information: It removes any bitcasts from a subset to a superset
>> address space. It gets at the address space information by requiring
the
>> TargetAddrspaces analysis, which will give it the default
implementation in
>> all current tools.
>
> For the case of a GetElementPointer, we are replacing a bitcast to a 
> pointer, getelem with a getelem bitcast.  The assumption is the latter 
> bitcast will hopefully go away when we iterate through those uses.
Uh? Is this a comment about what the current code or my patch does, or what it
should do? I don't understand what you mean here.
>> Mon Ping suggests using address space information for alias analysis as
>> well, which seems to make sense. In effect this is a form of type-based
>> alias analysis, but different address spaces don't preclude
pointers from
>> being equal. A problem here is that pointers in disjoint address spaces
>> would be marked as not aliasing, but when the default relation is
disjoint
>> this is not so conservative. This might require an extra option
"Unknown",
>> which can be used as the default instead of "Disjoint". For
Unknown, any
>> pass can do the conservative thing.
>
> What I'm suggesting is that Alias Analysis can be a client to where we 
> store address space information.  In the example you gave, alias analysis 
> will examine two memory locations, ask the TargetAddressSpace what the 
> relationship is and if it is disjoint, it will return no alias.  If the 
> address spaces are in subset relationship, the alias analysis returns maybe
> unless it has more information.  If a client doesn't tell the compiler
the
> correct address space information, the client shouldn't expect correct 
> answers from coming out of the compiler.
True, anyone actually using address space should make sure that this info is
correct anyway. So, no need for an unknown default?
>> Lastly, I'm still not so sure if InstCombine is the right place for
this
>> simplification. This needs some more thought, but currently it is a
problem
>> that instcombine does not process BitCastConstantExprs. I might end up
>> writing a seperate pass for just this.
>
> I'm not sure either. At some level, what we want is to propagate the
most
> precise address space (or restrict) information to its use.
Exactly.
> This means that ideally we would want to be able to handle copies of the
> value stored in some temporary and track it all the way through to it use.
> InstCombine will not handle this case, e.g, address space 1 is a subset of
2
>    int<1>* ptr = ...
>    int<2>* ptr2 = ptr1+4
>    *ptr2 = ...
Won't this code produce a bitcast in the IR, which can be propagated? My
current patch doesn't do this, but it should be easy to extend it to also
propagate a bitcast past pointer arithmetic.

Ie, it should change

%tmp = bitcast i32 addrspace(1)* %ptr1 to i32 addrspace(2)*
%ptr2 = add i32 addrspace(2)* %tmp, 4
store i32 0 i32 addrspace(2)* %ptr2

to 

%tmp  = add i32 addrspace(1)* %ptr, 4
%ptr2 = bitcast %tmp to i32 addrspace(2)
store i32 0 i32 addrspace(2)* %ptr2

and then to 

%ptr2  = add i32 addrspace(1)* %ptr, 4
store i32 0 i32 addrspace(1)* %ptr2

Which shouldn't be too hard?

Coming to think of it, the above won't even use the add instruction, but
will
probably use a GEP to do the +4. The current code already propagates bitcasts
past GEP instructions. Also, I suspect that our C frontends will already
produce the second version of the IR for the C code you give.

Or am I totally missing the point you are making here?


Gr.

Matthijs
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20080811/59bb448b/attachment.sig>

Hi Matthijs,

On Aug 11, 2008, at 4:09 AM, Matthijs Kooijman wrote:
>
>> I don't have a problem having another class, TargetAddrSpace, to  
>> store this
>> information.  However, I don't think it make sense being a  
>> standalone pass.
>> Address spaces seems to part of the TargetData and it seems more  
>> natural
>> to ask the TargetData to return the TargetAddrSpace object   
>> (similar to
>> struct layout) to describe the relationships between address spaces.
> This is pretty much what I did in my first patch, but Chris didn't  
> like it.
> Currently, the TargetData class can be completely described using  
> it's string
> representation (which is also stored inside a module). Adding  
> address space
> information to target data breaks this, unless we also make a string
> representation of the address spaces that we can put in a module.
>
> I think that having a seperate class is somewhat cleaner, since it  
> also makes
> sure that this info is only made available to the passes that  
> actually use it.
>
If I remember correctly, I was also not fond of passing another  
TargetAddrSpace reference to the TargetData object.  I was hoping that  
we could encode the information as a target description string like we  
do for ABI information.   I just don't want to end up with too many  
objects that describe the machine. One can argue that we shouldn't  
pollute the TargetData since it describes the ABI  alignment, size,  
and object layoutbut I feel that this data fits naturally there.  If  
you and other people feel it is cleaner with a separate pass, I'm fine  
with it.

I want to treat my next point with some delicacy as I don't want to  
start a religious war.  I just want to get clarification from the  
community on the use of multiple inheritance for the case of Phases  
like AllDisjointAddrspaces.  From what I can gather, the use of  
multiple inheritance is to separate the interface (TargetAddrSpace) to  
access data from the interface of the phase (ImmutablePhase).  In this  
case, will we ever create a concrete class from TargetAddrSpace that  
doesn't also derive from ImmutablePass? If not, I don't think is worth  
using multiple inheritance in this case.
>> [Deleted text]
>>> The last part of this patch is an addition to InstCombine to make  
>>> use of
>>> this information: It removes any bitcasts from a subset to a  
>>> superset
>>> address space. It gets at the address space information by  
>>> requiring the
>>> TargetAddrspaces analysis, which will give it the default  
>>> implementation in
>>> all current tools.
>>
>> For the case of a GetElementPointer, we are replacing a bitcast to a
>> pointer, getelem with a getelem bitcast.  The assumption is the  
>> latter
>> bitcast will hopefully go away when we iterate through those uses.
> Uh? Is this a comment about what the current code or my patch does,  
> or what it
> should do? I don't understand what you mean here.
>
My comment was more on what I thought the patch did and I wanted to  
confirm that it will cleanup newly generated bit cast that are created.
>>> [Deleted Text]
>>
>> What I'm suggesting is that Alias Analysis can be a client to where
>> we
>> store address space information.  In the example you gave, alias  
>> analysis
>> will examine two memory locations, ask the TargetAddressSpace what  
>> the
>> relationship is and if it is disjoint, it will return no alias.  If  
>> the
>> address spaces are in subset relationship, the alias analysis  
>> returns maybe
>> unless it has more information.  If a client doesn't tell the  
>> compiler the
>> correct address space information, the client shouldn't expect  
>> correct
>> answers from coming out of the compiler.
> True, anyone actually using address space should make sure that this  
> info is
> correct anyway. So, no need for an unknown default?
>
That is my feeling.

>>> Lastly, I'm still not so sure if InstCombine is the right place
>>> for this
>>> simplification. This needs some more thought, but currently it is  
>>> a problem
>>> that instcombine does not process BitCastConstantExprs. I might  
>>> end up
>>> writing a seperate pass for just this.
>>
>> I'm not sure either. At some level, what we want is to propagate  
>> the most
>> precise address space (or restrict) information to its use.
> Exactly.
>
>> This means that ideally we would want to be able to handle copies  
>> of the
>> value stored in some temporary and track it all the way through to  
>> it use.
>> InstCombine will not handle this case, e.g, address space 1 is a  
>> subset of 2
>>   int<1>* ptr = ...
>>   int<2>* ptr2 = ptr1+4
>>   *ptr2 = ...
> Won't this code produce a bitcast in the IR, which can be  
> propagated? My
> current patch doesn't do this, but it should be easy to extend it to  
> also
> propagate a bitcast past pointer arithmetic.
>
> Ie, it should change
>
> %tmp = bitcast i32 addrspace(1)* %ptr1 to i32 addrspace(2)*
> %ptr2 = add i32 addrspace(2)* %tmp, 4
> store i32 0 i32 addrspace(2)* %ptr2
>
> to
>
> %tmp  = add i32 addrspace(1)* %ptr, 4
> %ptr2 = bitcast %tmp to i32 addrspace(2)
> store i32 0 i32 addrspace(2)* %ptr2
>
> and then to
>
> %ptr2  = add i32 addrspace(1)* %ptr, 4
> store i32 0 i32 addrspace(1)* %ptr2
>
> Which shouldn't be too hard?
>
> Coming to think of it, the above won't even use the add instruction,  
> but will
> probably use a GEP to do the +4. The current code already propagates  
> bitcasts
> past GEP instructions. Also, I suspect that our C frontends will  
> already
> produce the second version of the IR for the C code you give.
>
> Or am I totally missing the point you are making here?
>
No, you got  my point even though my example is not a good one. If the  
address calculation was using a variable, I don't think we can fold it  
into the GEP and we might lose this information.  The point I was  
trying to make is that the information needs to be propagated through  
any address calculation when possible.
>
>
Cheers,
   -- Mon Ping
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20080811/242e50df/attachment.html>

Hi Mon Ping,
> If I remember correctly, I was also not fond of passing another 
> TargetAddrSpace reference to the TargetData object.  I was hoping that we 
> could encode the information as a target description string like we do for 
> ABI information.   I just don't want to end up with too many objects
that
> describe the machine. One can argue that we shouldn't pollute the 
> TargetData since it describes the ABI  alignment, size, and object 
> layoutbut I feel that this data fits naturally there.  If you and other 
> people feel it is cleaner with a separate pass, I'm fine with it.
Perhaps encoding it in TargetData makes sense. However, I was avoiding this
for now, since Chris commented a while back that he wanted to have it in
TargetData "only if absolutely required".

However, thinking of this a bit more I do see your point about TargetData.
Another interesting advantage is that it would be a lot easier to make things
consistent between clang and LLVM, by simply using the TargetData string
that gets embedded in the module.

So, I guess embedding this info in TargetData makes more sense. How would this
look like? I would think of something like:

as1:<2:=3:>4:!3

This would mean address space 1 is a subset of 2, equivalent to 3, a superset
of 4 and disjoint with 3. A number of these could be present in a TargetData
string, to fully describe the situation. Any relations not described mean
disjoint. Relations can also be implicitely defined, ie, as1:<2-as2:<3
also
implies as1:<3. 

I'm not sure if the > should be present, since that's always
reversible. Also,
! is probably not so nice for disjoint, any other suggestions?

As to implementing this, I'm thinking of a equivalency table (for every
address space, store the equivalent address space with the lowest id) and for
each of those lowest id spaces in each equivalency group store a set of
address spaces that are a subset. This set should be complete, so when the
string says A > B > C, the set should store both B and C as subsets of A.

This allows for resolving the relation between two address spaces by two
lookups in the equivalency table and (one or) two lookups in the subset table.
No results in the subset table means the relation is disjoint, then.

Any comments on this? Chris, would this be acceptable?
> I want to treat my next point with some delicacy as I don't want to
start a
> religious war.  I just want to get clarification from the community on the 
> use of multiple inheritance for the case of Phases like 
> AllDisjointAddrspaces.  From what I can gather, the use of multiple 
> inheritance is to separate the interface (TargetAddrSpace) to access data 
> from the interface of the phase (ImmutablePhase).  In this case, will we 
> ever create a concrete class from TargetAddrSpace that doesn't also
derive
> from ImmutablePass? If not, I don't think is worth using multiple 
> inheritance in this case.
I think you are right here, changing the inheritance in this way also works
fine.
>>> For the case of a GetElementPointer, we are replacing a bitcast to
a
>>> pointer, getelem with a getelem bitcast.  The assumption is the
latter
>>> bitcast will hopefully go away when we iterate through those uses.
>> Uh? Is this a comment about what the current code or my patch does, or
what
>> it should do? I don't understand what you mean here.
> My comment was more on what I thought the patch did and I wanted to confirm
> that it will cleanup newly generated bit cast that are created.
In that case, yes, the newly generated bitcasts should be iteratively cleaned
up whenever possible.
>> True, anyone actually using address space should make sure that this
info
>> is correct anyway. So, no need for an unknown default?
> That is my feeling.
Ok.
> No, you got  my point even though my example is not a good one. If the 
> address calculation was using a variable, I don't think we can fold it
into
> the GEP and we might lose this information.
Ie, a variable that is stored to, you mean? In that case, the address space is
probably propagated until the store instruction. Perhaps it can even be
propagated through the store instruction, so it stores to a bitcasted pointer
(ie, bitcast i32 addrspace(2)* * to i32 addrspace(1) * *). I suspect other
parts of instcombine might handle this from here and change the variable's
type to i32 addrspace(1), if possible. I guess this is something for later on.
> The point I was trying to make is that the information needs to be
> propagated through any address calculation when possible.
Yes, but that shouldn't be too hard to add to the existing code.

Gr.

Matthijs
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20080915/e087781e/attachment.sig>