thr3ads.net - llvm dev - [llvm-dev] RFC: We need to explicitly state that some functions are reserved by LLVM [Oct 2017]

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

Xinliang David Li via llvm-dev

2017-Oct-27 18:10 UTC

[llvm-dev] RFC: We need to explicitly state that some functions are reserved by LLVM

On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 1:50 AM, David Chisnall via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> This seems slightly inverted.  As I understand it, the root of the problem
> is that some standards, such as C, C++, and POSIX, define some functions as
> special and we rely on their specialness when optimising.  Unfortunately,
> the specialness is a property of the source language and, possibly,
> environment and not necessarily of the target.  The knowledge of which
> functions are special seems like it ought to belong in the front end, so a
> C++ compiler might tag a function called _Znwm as special, but to a C or
> Fortran front end this is just another function and shouldn’t be treated
> specially.
>
> Would it not be cleaner to have the front end (and any optimisations that
> are aware of special behaviour of functions) add metadata indicating that
> these functions are special?


Ideally many of these functions should be annotated as builtin in the
system headers.  An hacky solution is for frontend to check if the
declarations are from system headers to decide if metadata needs to be
applied.

David


> If the metadata is lost, then this inhibits later optimisations but
> shouldn’t affect the semantics of the code (it’s always valid to treat the
> special functions as non-special functions) and optimisations then don’t
> need to mark them.  This would also give us a free mechanism of specifying
> functions that are semantically equivalent but have different spellings.
>
>

> David
>
> > On 27 Oct 2017, at 04:14, Chandler Carruth via llvm-dev <
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> >
> > I've gotten a fantastic bug report. Consider the LLVM IR:
> >
> > target triple = "x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu"
> >
> > define internal i8* @access({ i8* }* %arg, i64) {
> >   ret i8* undef
> > }
> >
> > define i8* @g({ i8* }* %arg) {
> > bb:
> >   %tmp = alloca { i8* }*, align 8
> >   store { i8* }* %arg, { i8* }** %tmp, align 8
> >   br i1 undef, label %bb4, label %bb1
> >
> > bb1:
> >   %tmp2 = load { i8* }*, { i8* }** %tmp, align 8
> >   %tmp3 = call i8* @access({ i8* }* %tmp2, i64 undef)
> >   br label %bb4
> >
> > bb4:
> >   ret i8* undef
> > }
> >
> > This IR, if compiled with `opt
-passes='cgscc(inline,argpromotion)'
> -disable-output` hits a bunch of asserts in the LazyCallGraph.
> >
> > The problem here is that `argpromotion` turns a normal looking
function
> `i8* @access({ i8* }* %arg, i64)` and turn it into a magical function `i8*
> @access(i8* %arg, i64)`. This latter signature is the POSIX `access`
> function that LLVM's `TargetLibraryInfo` knows magical things about.
> >
> > Because *some* library functions known to `TargetLibraryInfo` can have
> *calls* to them introduced at arbitrary points of optimization (consider
> vectorized variants of math functions), the new pass manager and its graph
> to provide ordering over the module get Very Unhappy when you *introduce* a
> definition of a library function in the middle of the compilation pipeline.
> >
> > And really, we do *not* want `argpromotion` to do this. We don't
want it
> to turn some random function by the name of `@free` into the actual `@free`
> function and suddenly change how LLVM handles it.
> >
> > So what do we do?
> >
> > One option is to make `argpromotion` and every other pass that mutates
a
> function's signature rename the function (or add a `nobuiltin`
attribute to
> it). However, this seems brittle and somewhat complicated.
> >
> > My proposal is that we admit that certain names of functions are
> reserved in LLVM's IR. For these names, in some cases *any* function
with
> that name will be treated specially by the optimizer. We can still check
> the signatures when transforming code based on LLVM's semantic
> understanding of that function, but this avoids any need to check things
> when mutating the signature of the function.
> >
> > This would require frontends to avoid emitting functions by these
names
> unless they should have these special semantics. However, even if they do,
> everything should remain conservatively correct. But I'll send an email
to
> cfe-dev suggesting that Clang start "mangling" internal functions
that
> collide with target names. I think this is important as I've found a
quite
> surprising number of cases where this happens in real code.
> >
> > There is no need to auto-upgrade here, because again, LLVM's
handling
> will remain conservatively correct.
> >
> > Does this seem reasonable? If so, I'll send patches to update the
> LangRef with these restrictions. I'll also take a quick stab at
generating
> some example tables of such names from the .td files used by
> `TargetLibraryInfo` already. These can't be authoritative because of
the
> platform-specific nature of it, but should help people understand how this
> area works.
> >
> >
> > One alternative that seems appealing but doesn't actually help
would be
> to make `TargetLibraryInfo` ignore internal functions. That is how the C++
> spec seems to handle this for example (C library function names are
> reserved only when they have linkage). But this doesn't work well for
LLVM
> because we want to be able to LTO an internalized C library. So I think we
> need the rule for LLVM function names to not rely on linkage here.
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> > -Chandler
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > LLVM Developers mailing list
> > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> > http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20171027/18798603/attachment.html>

Robinson, Paul via llvm-dev

2017-Oct-27 18:15 UTC

head link

[llvm-dev] RFC: We need to explicitly state that some functions are reserved by LLVM

+1 to what the Davids said.  This could also help address the situation that the
Android keynote mentioned at last week's dev meeting: if you're building
the implementation of the library you don't want the compiler to wave its
magic wand because it knows better than you.
--paulr

From: llvm-dev [mailto:llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org] On Behalf Of Xinliang
David Li via llvm-dev
Sent: Friday, October 27, 2017 11:11 AM
To: David Chisnall
Cc: llvm-dev
Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] RFC: We need to explicitly state that some functions are
reserved by LLVM



On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 1:50 AM, David Chisnall via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org<mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote:
This seems slightly inverted.  As I understand it, the root of the problem is
that some standards, such as C, C++, and POSIX, define some functions as special
and we rely on their specialness when optimising.  Unfortunately, the
specialness is a property of the source language and, possibly, environment and
not necessarily of the target.  The knowledge of which functions are special
seems like it ought to belong in the front end, so a C++ compiler might tag a
function called _Znwm as special, but to a C or Fortran front end this is just
another function and shouldn’t be treated specially.

Would it not be cleaner to have the front end (and any optimisations that are
aware of special behaviour of functions) add metadata indicating that these
functions are special?


Ideally many of these functions should be annotated as builtin in the system
headers.  An hacky solution is for frontend to check if the declarations are
from system headers to decide if metadata needs to be applied.

David


If the metadata is lost, then this inhibits later optimisations but shouldn’t
affect the semantics of the code (it’s always valid to treat the special
functions as non-special functions) and optimisations then don’t need to mark
them.  This would also give us a free mechanism of specifying functions that are
semantically equivalent but have different spellings.



David
> On 27 Oct 2017, at 04:14, Chandler Carruth via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org<mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote:
>
> I've gotten a fantastic bug report. Consider the LLVM IR:
>
> target triple = "x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu"
>
> define internal i8* @access({ i8* }* %arg, i64) {
>   ret i8* undef
> }
>
> define i8* @g({ i8* }* %arg) {
> bb:
>   %tmp = alloca { i8* }*, align 8
>   store { i8* }* %arg, { i8* }** %tmp, align 8
>   br i1 undef, label %bb4, label %bb1
>
> bb1:
>   %tmp2 = load { i8* }*, { i8* }** %tmp, align 8
>   %tmp3 = call i8* @access({ i8* }* %tmp2, i64 undef)
>   br label %bb4
>
> bb4:
>   ret i8* undef
> }
>
> This IR, if compiled with `opt -passes='cgscc(inline,argpromotion)'
-disable-output` hits a bunch of asserts in the LazyCallGraph.
>
> The problem here is that `argpromotion` turns a normal looking function
`i8* @access({ i8* }* %arg, i64)` and turn it into a magical function `i8*
@access(i8* %arg, i64)`. This latter signature is the POSIX `access` function
that LLVM's `TargetLibraryInfo` knows magical things about.
>
> Because *some* library functions known to `TargetLibraryInfo` can have
*calls* to them introduced at arbitrary points of optimization (consider
vectorized variants of math functions), the new pass manager and its graph to
provide ordering over the module get Very Unhappy when you *introduce* a
definition of a library function in the middle of the compilation pipeline.
>
> And really, we do *not* want `argpromotion` to do this. We don't want
it to turn some random function by the name of `@free` into the actual `@free`
function and suddenly change how LLVM handles it.
>
> So what do we do?
>
> One option is to make `argpromotion` and every other pass that mutates a
function's signature rename the function (or add a `nobuiltin` attribute to
it). However, this seems brittle and somewhat complicated.
>
> My proposal is that we admit that certain names of functions are reserved
in LLVM's IR. For these names, in some cases *any* function with that name
will be treated specially by the optimizer. We can still check the signatures
when transforming code based on LLVM's semantic understanding of that
function, but this avoids any need to check things when mutating the signature
of the function.
>
> This would require frontends to avoid emitting functions by these names
unless they should have these special semantics. However, even if they do,
everything should remain conservatively correct. But I'll send an email to
cfe-dev suggesting that Clang start "mangling" internal functions that
collide with target names. I think this is important as I've found a quite
surprising number of cases where this happens in real code.
>
> There is no need to auto-upgrade here, because again, LLVM's handling
will remain conservatively correct.
>
> Does this seem reasonable? If so, I'll send patches to update the
LangRef with these restrictions. I'll also take a quick stab at generating
some example tables of such names from the .td files used by `TargetLibraryInfo`
already. These can't be authoritative because of the platform-specific
nature of it, but should help people understand how this area works.
>
>
> One alternative that seems appealing but doesn't actually help would be
to make `TargetLibraryInfo` ignore internal functions. That is how the C++ spec
seems to handle this for example (C library function names are reserved only
when they have linkage). But this doesn't work well for LLVM because we want
to be able to LTO an internalized C library. So I think we need the rule for
LLVM function names to not rely on linkage here.
>
>
> Thanks,
> -Chandler
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
_______________________________________________
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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20171027/c110639b/attachment-0001.html>

David Majnemer via llvm-dev

2017-Oct-27 18:27 UTC

head link

[llvm-dev] RFC: We need to explicitly state that some functions are reserved by LLVM

In general, I think we are better off phrasing attributes as giving
optimization power rather than restricting it. It allows for a naive
optimization pass to avoid considering attributes at all.

On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 11:15 AM, Robinson, Paul via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> +1 to what the Davids said.  This could also help address the situation
> that the Android keynote mentioned at last week's dev meeting: if
you're
> building the implementation of the library you don't want the compiler
to
> wave its magic wand because it knows better than you.
>
> --paulr
>
>
>
> *From:* llvm-dev [mailto:llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org] *On Behalf Of
*Xinliang
> David Li via llvm-dev
> *Sent:* Friday, October 27, 2017 11:11 AM
> *To:* David Chisnall
> *Cc:* llvm-dev
> *Subject:* Re: [llvm-dev] RFC: We need to explicitly state that some
> functions are reserved by LLVM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 1:50 AM, David Chisnall via llvm-dev <
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
> This seems slightly inverted.  As I understand it, the root of the problem
> is that some standards, such as C, C++, and POSIX, define some functions as
> special and we rely on their specialness when optimising.  Unfortunately,
> the specialness is a property of the source language and, possibly,
> environment and not necessarily of the target.  The knowledge of which
> functions are special seems like it ought to belong in the front end, so a
> C++ compiler might tag a function called _Znwm as special, but to a C or
> Fortran front end this is just another function and shouldn’t be treated
> specially.
>
> Would it not be cleaner to have the front end (and any optimisations that
> are aware of special behaviour of functions) add metadata indicating that
> these functions are special?
>
>
>
>
>
> Ideally many of these functions should be annotated as builtin in the
> system headers.  An hacky solution is for frontend to check if the
> declarations are from system headers to decide if metadata needs to be
> applied.
>
>
>
> David
>
>
>
>
>
> If the metadata is lost, then this inhibits later optimisations but
> shouldn’t affect the semantics of the code (it’s always valid to treat the
> special functions as non-special functions) and optimisations then don’t
> need to mark them.  This would also give us a free mechanism of specifying
> functions that are semantically equivalent but have different spellings.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> David
>
>
> > On 27 Oct 2017, at 04:14, Chandler Carruth via llvm-dev <
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> >
> > I've gotten a fantastic bug report. Consider the LLVM IR:
> >
> > target triple = "x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu"
> >
> > define internal i8* @access({ i8* }* %arg, i64) {
> >   ret i8* undef
> > }
> >
> > define i8* @g({ i8* }* %arg) {
> > bb:
> >   %tmp = alloca { i8* }*, align 8
> >   store { i8* }* %arg, { i8* }** %tmp, align 8
> >   br i1 undef, label %bb4, label %bb1
> >
> > bb1:
> >   %tmp2 = load { i8* }*, { i8* }** %tmp, align 8
> >   %tmp3 = call i8* @access({ i8* }* %tmp2, i64 undef)
> >   br label %bb4
> >
> > bb4:
> >   ret i8* undef
> > }
> >
> > This IR, if compiled with `opt
-passes='cgscc(inline,argpromotion)'
> -disable-output` hits a bunch of asserts in the LazyCallGraph.
> >
> > The problem here is that `argpromotion` turns a normal looking
function
> `i8* @access({ i8* }* %arg, i64)` and turn it into a magical function `i8*
> @access(i8* %arg, i64)`. This latter signature is the POSIX `access`
> function that LLVM's `TargetLibraryInfo` knows magical things about.
> >
> > Because *some* library functions known to `TargetLibraryInfo` can have
> *calls* to them introduced at arbitrary points of optimization (consider
> vectorized variants of math functions), the new pass manager and its graph
> to provide ordering over the module get Very Unhappy when you *introduce* a
> definition of a library function in the middle of the compilation pipeline.
> >
> > And really, we do *not* want `argpromotion` to do this. We don't
want it
> to turn some random function by the name of `@free` into the actual `@free`
> function and suddenly change how LLVM handles it.
> >
> > So what do we do?
> >
> > One option is to make `argpromotion` and every other pass that mutates
a
> function's signature rename the function (or add a `nobuiltin`
attribute to
> it). However, this seems brittle and somewhat complicated.
> >
> > My proposal is that we admit that certain names of functions are
> reserved in LLVM's IR. For these names, in some cases *any* function
with
> that name will be treated specially by the optimizer. We can still check
> the signatures when transforming code based on LLVM's semantic
> understanding of that function, but this avoids any need to check things
> when mutating the signature of the function.
> >
> > This would require frontends to avoid emitting functions by these
names
> unless they should have these special semantics. However, even if they do,
> everything should remain conservatively correct. But I'll send an email
to
> cfe-dev suggesting that Clang start "mangling" internal functions
that
> collide with target names. I think this is important as I've found a
quite
> surprising number of cases where this happens in real code.
> >
> > There is no need to auto-upgrade here, because again, LLVM's
handling
> will remain conservatively correct.
> >
> > Does this seem reasonable? If so, I'll send patches to update the
> LangRef with these restrictions. I'll also take a quick stab at
generating
> some example tables of such names from the .td files used by
> `TargetLibraryInfo` already. These can't be authoritative because of
the
> platform-specific nature of it, but should help people understand how this
> area works.
> >
> >
> > One alternative that seems appealing but doesn't actually help
would be
> to make `TargetLibraryInfo` ignore internal functions. That is how the C++
> spec seems to handle this for example (C library function names are
> reserved only when they have linkage). But this doesn't work well for
LLVM
> because we want to be able to LTO an internalized C library. So I think we
> need the rule for LLVM function names to not rely on linkage here.
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> > -Chandler
> >
>
> > _______________________________________________
> > LLVM Developers mailing list
> > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> > http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>
>-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20171027/57112e68/attachment.html>

Hal Finkel via llvm-dev

2017-Oct-27 18:31 UTC

head link

[llvm-dev] RFC: We need to explicitly state that some functions are reserved by LLVM

On 10/27/2017 01:10 PM, Xinliang David Li via llvm-dev
wrote:>
>
> On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 1:50 AM, David Chisnall via llvm-dev 
> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org>> wrote:
>
>     This seems slightly inverted.  As I understand it, the root of the
>     problem is that some standards, such as C, C++, and POSIX, define
>     some functions as special and we rely on their specialness when
>     optimising.  Unfortunately, the specialness is a property of the
>     source language and, possibly, environment and not necessarily of
>     the target. The knowledge of which functions are special seems
>     like it ought to belong in the front end, so a C++ compiler might
>     tag a function called _Znwm as special, but to a C or Fortran
>     front end this is just another function and shouldn’t be treated
>     specially.
>
>     Would it not be cleaner to have the front end (and any
>     optimisations that are aware of special behaviour of functions)
>     add metadata indicating that these functions are special? 
>
>
>
> Ideally many of these functions should be annotated as builtin in the 
> system headers.  An hacky solution is for frontend to check if the 
> declarations are from system headers to decide if metadata needs to be 
> applied.
I agree. Marking external functions from system headers seems like a 
reasonable heuristic. We'd need some heuristic because it's not 
reasonable for the frontend to know about every function the optimizer 
knows about. Over-marking seems okay, however.

  -Hal
>
> David
>
>     If the metadata is lost, then this inhibits later optimisations
>     but shouldn’t affect the semantics of the code (it’s always valid
>     to treat the special functions as non-special functions) and
>     optimisations then don’t need to mark them.  This would also give
>     us a free mechanism of specifying functions that are semantically
>     equivalent but have different spellings.
>
>
>
>     David
>
>     > On 27 Oct 2017, at 04:14, Chandler Carruth via llvm-dev
>     <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org>> wrote:
>     >
>     > I've gotten a fantastic bug report. Consider the LLVM IR:
>     >
>     > target triple = "x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu"
>     >
>     > define internal i8* @access({ i8* }* %arg, i64) {
>     >   ret i8* undef
>     > }
>     >
>     > define i8* @g({ i8* }* %arg) {
>     > bb:
>     >   %tmp = alloca { i8* }*, align 8
>     >   store { i8* }* %arg, { i8* }** %tmp, align 8
>     >   br i1 undef, label %bb4, label %bb1
>     >
>     > bb1:
>     >   %tmp2 = load { i8* }*, { i8* }** %tmp, align 8
>     >   %tmp3 = call i8* @access({ i8* }* %tmp2, i64 undef)
>     >   br label %bb4
>     >
>     > bb4:
>     >   ret i8* undef
>     > }
>     >
>     > This IR, if compiled with `opt
>     -passes='cgscc(inline,argpromotion)' -disable-output` hits a
bunch
>     of asserts in the LazyCallGraph.
>     >
>     > The problem here is that `argpromotion` turns a normal looking
>     function `i8* @access({ i8* }* %arg, i64)` and turn it into a
>     magical function `i8* @access(i8* %arg, i64)`. This latter
>     signature is the POSIX `access` function that LLVM's
>     `TargetLibraryInfo` knows magical things about.
>     >
>     > Because *some* library functions known to `TargetLibraryInfo`
>     can have *calls* to them introduced at arbitrary points of
>     optimization (consider vectorized variants of math functions), the
>     new pass manager and its graph to provide ordering over the module
>     get Very Unhappy when you *introduce* a definition of a library
>     function in the middle of the compilation pipeline.
>     >
>     > And really, we do *not* want `argpromotion` to do this. We
don't
>     want it to turn some random function by the name of `@free` into
>     the actual `@free` function and suddenly change how LLVM handles it.
>     >
>     > So what do we do?
>     >
>     > One option is to make `argpromotion` and every other pass that
>     mutates a function's signature rename the function (or add a
>     `nobuiltin` attribute to it). However, this seems brittle and
>     somewhat complicated.
>     >
>     > My proposal is that we admit that certain names of functions are
>     reserved in LLVM's IR. For these names, in some cases *any*
>     function with that name will be treated specially by the
>     optimizer. We can still check the signatures when transforming
>     code based on LLVM's semantic understanding of that function, but
>     this avoids any need to check things when mutating the signature
>     of the function.
>     >
>     > This would require frontends to avoid emitting functions by
>     these names unless they should have these special semantics.
>     However, even if they do, everything should remain conservatively
>     correct. But I'll send an email to cfe-dev suggesting that Clang
>     start "mangling" internal functions that collide with target
>     names. I think this is important as I've found a quite surprising
>     number of cases where this happens in real code.
>     >
>     > There is no need to auto-upgrade here, because again, LLVM's
>     handling will remain conservatively correct.
>     >
>     > Does this seem reasonable? If so, I'll send patches to update
>     the LangRef with these restrictions. I'll also take a quick stab
>     at generating some example tables of such names from the .td files
>     used by `TargetLibraryInfo` already. These can't be authoritative
>     because of the platform-specific nature of it, but should help
>     people understand how this area works.
>     >
>     >
>     > One alternative that seems appealing but doesn't actually help
>     would be to make `TargetLibraryInfo` ignore internal functions.
>     That is how the C++ spec seems to handle this for example (C
>     library function names are reserved only when they have linkage).
>     But this doesn't work well for LLVM because we want to be able to
>     LTO an internalized C library. So I think we need the rule for
>     LLVM function names to not rely on linkage here.
>     >
>     >
>     > Thanks,
>     > -Chandler
>     >
>     > _______________________________________________
>     > 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>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     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>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
-- 
Hal Finkel
Lead, Compiler Technology and Programming Languages
Leadership Computing Facility
Argonne National Laboratory

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20171027/051f6b09/attachment.html>

Michael Kruse via llvm-dev

2017-Oct-28 00:51 UTC

head link

[llvm-dev] RFC: We need to explicitly state that some functions are reserved by LLVM

2017-10-27 20:31 GMT+02:00 Hal Finkel via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org>:> I agree. Marking external functions from system headers seems like a
> reasonable heuristic. We'd need some heuristic because it's not
reasonable
> for the frontend to know about every function the optimizer knows about.
> Over-marking seems okay, however.
Sorry for the naive question, why is it unreasonable for the frontend
to know about special functions? It is the frontend who defines a
source language function's semantics. Clang also has access (or can be
made to can get access) to TargetLibraryInfo, no?

The most straightforward solution seems to have an intrinsic for every
function that has compiler magic, meaning every other function is
ordinary without worrying about hitting a special case (e.g. when
concatenating strings to create new function names when outlining).
Recognizing functions names and assuming they represent the semantics
from libs seems "unclean", tying LLVM IR more closely to C and a
specific platform's libc/libm than necessary.

"malloc" once had an intrinsic. Why was it removed, and recognized by
name instead?

Michael

Alex Bradbury via llvm-dev

2017-Nov-04 20:58 UTC

head link

[llvm-dev] RFC: We need to explicitly state that some functions are reserved by LLVM

On 27 October 2017 at 19:31, Hal Finkel via llvm-dev
<llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:> I agree. Marking external functions from system headers seems like a
> reasonable heuristic. We'd need some heuristic because it's not
reasonable
> for the frontend to know about every function the optimizer knows about.
> Over-marking seems okay, however.
I think this is the pragmatic way forwards. For a concise example of
how broken/surprising the current behaviour is:

This IR:

"""
define double @floor(double %a) nounwind readnone {
  call void @abort()
  unreachable
}

define double @foo(float %a) nounwind {
  %1 = fpext float %a to double
  %2 = call double @floor(double %1)
  ret double %2
}

declare void @abort()
"""

Results in the following SelectionDAG:

"""
Initial selection DAG: BB#0 'foo:'
SelectionDAG has 8 nodes:
  t0: ch = EntryToken
        t2: f32,ch = CopyFromReg t0, Register:f32 %vreg0
      t3: f64 = fp_extend t2
    t4: f64 = ffloor t3
  t6: ch,glue = CopyToReg t0, Register:f64 %D0, t4
  t7: ch = AArch64ISD::RET_FLAG t6, Register:f64 %D0, t6:1
"""

And the following machine code:

"""
    .globl    foo                     // -- Begin function foo
    .p2align    2
    .type    foo, at function
foo:                                    // @foo
// BB#0:
    fcvt    d0, s0
    frintm    d0, d0
    ret
.Lfunc_end1:
    .size    foo, .Lfunc_end1-foo
                                        // -- End function
"""

ffloor is legal for AArch64, meaning frintm is produced rather than a
call to floor. Deleting the 'readnone' attribute from the floor
function will avoid lowering to ffloor. Compile with -mtriple=arm and
the generated assembly has completely different semantics (calling
floor and so aborting).

I'm not sure if there's a tracking bug for this, but the earliest
mention I could find with a quick search was
<https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2141>.

Best,

Alex

llvm dev - Oct 2017 - RFC: We need to explicitly state that some functions are reserved by LLVM

[llvm-dev] RFC: We need to explicitly state that some functions are reserved by LLVM

[llvm-dev] RFC: We need to explicitly state that some functions are reserved by LLVM

[llvm-dev] RFC: We need to explicitly state that some functions are reserved by LLVM

[llvm-dev] RFC: We need to explicitly state that some functions are reserved by LLVM

[llvm-dev] RFC: We need to explicitly state that some functions are reserved by LLVM

[llvm-dev] RFC: We need to explicitly state that some functions are reserved by LLVM