llvm dev - Jul 2010 - [LLVMdev] Union type, is it really used or necessary?

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 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/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>