llvm dev - Sep 2018 - [RFC] New Clang target selection options for ARM/AArch64

Hi Eli, Renato,

Thanks for your feedback, there's a lot more to some of these things than I
knew. I've addressed your points below.

The overall summary is:
- Start with converting the TargetParser to tableGen, with no user facing
changes
- Add warnings based on that, behind -Wall. Starting with command lines, since
directives have
larger implications that need investigation

Thanks,
David Spickett.


mandatory features
=================
>> Could you go into a bit more detail about mandatory features?  I'm
pretty sure people are using the extension functionality to turn off features
which are technically mandatory according to the reference manual, like
floating-point in armv8a.
>> I'd be more comfortable if these weren't enabled by default,
but were
present in -Wall.

It seems like a large portion of the architecturally invalid combinations have a
technical reasoning. So I'd amend that point from:

"- Emit a warning when a mandatory feature of the base architecture is
enabled with '+extension', or disabled with '+noextension'. (and
ignore the option)"

to

" - Emit a warning when a mandatory feature of the base architecture is
enabled with '+extension', or disabled with
'+noextension'."

So the option doesn't change behaviour and as Renato suggested we don't
make them errors by default. So it's visible if you want to check these
things but it's not going to break existing code. Anyone who wants an error
can always upgrade it if required.

Use of Tablegen
==============
>> Maybe you could put it into some existing library, like libLLVMTarget.
This would be a little easier but with what Renato said...
>> Option 1 makes everyone pay the cost and can be a lot harder to make
it flexible and "zero-cost".

I think we want to stick with the second way. This (from what I understand) also
helps with the goal of reusing existing tablegen.
>> One additional goal we had in the past, when we first wrote the
TargetParser was to use the *existing* target description table-gen
files to generate the parser tables.

I should have been more clear, "unify the list of extensions that command
lines and asm directives use" is sort of the same thing just muddled. As
discussed above I think we can achieve this, I'm sure I'll hit the same
issues you did Renato but hopefully they aren't showstoppers.

"target" attribute (Eli)
=================
>> One thing this doesn't mention is clang's "target"
attribute for functions; have you considered that at all?
I hadn't, thanks for pointing that out.

As far as I can tell, we only support cpu names via the target attribute:
__attribute__((target("arch=cortex-a75")))
Whereas this doesn't work:
__attribute__((target("arch=armv8-a+crc")))

We don't plan to add this as part of this work, but of course you could
specify invalid combinations with a CPU and some combination of other directives
and options. These would be warnings following the ones already mentioned.

I need to do some more investigation to work out exactly what invalid
combinations you could produce. So this will be a latter part of the work if at
all.

"Negative" backend features (Eli)
==========================
>> This seems mostly orthogonal?  At least I mean, I guess it might make
the translation from TargetParser features to LLVM features slightly easier, but
it seems like there could be some unexpected implications, so I don't want
to tie it to this change.
Agreed, it would certainly be a separate patch. It might not be needed so I will
work on the tablegen conversion without changing any of this and see how it
goes.
>> they're the only negative features that are relevant for
TargetParser?
Yes, the rest are for internal use aka not enabled by a specific option. For a
particular CPU for example.

'auto' FPU value (Renato)
===============
>> I'd have assumed -mfpu is already "auto" by default. Or
is this to
>> just override a previous option?
>>
>> ex: clang -mcpu cortex-a8 -mfpu vfp4 -mfpu auto -> defaults back to
VFP3.
I don't see any reference to this in the code or the docs, and clang
something similair:
./clang --target=arm-arm-none-eabi -mcpu=cortex-a8 -mfpu=vfp4 -mfpu=auto -c
/tmp/test.c
clang-8: error: the clang compiler does not support '-mfpu=auto'

Maybe I'm missing something.

ACLE macros (Renato)
==========
>> The base arch is armv8.4-a, the crypto extension turns on
AES/SHA2/SHA3/SM4. The nosha2 disables SHA2/>SHA3 (since SHA3 is dependant on
SHA2). Each of these features has an ACLE feature test macro, so Clang >needs
to know that nosha2 also disables SHA3.
>Is this complex logic done by GCC's front-end as well?
I don't think so, you might be right there. We will look into exactly what
GCC has implemented before making any moves here.

Errors (Renato)
=====
>> Errors:
>> - unknown extension in an assembly directive (currently fails silently)
>>    IIRC, this is by design.
If that's the case then we'll keep the behaviour. Again with warnings
under -Wall.

My impression of it came more from me trying to work out what was a valid option
at all. However if we can improve the documentation and consistency between
directives and command line options that won't be an issue.
>> Define "incompatible". Older Arm cores could have new
features that
wasn't even define in its own standard because manufacturers upgraded
the extra but not the core.

Good point, I suppose "incompatible" in the way I wrote it means
"not listed as an off the shelf config". Which you're right,
doesn't cover everything. So yes, agreed on defaulting to warnings behind
-Wall.
>> - mandatory feature of the base arch is enabled with '+'
(option is redundant so is ignored)
Agreed, also as discussed above it should not ignore the option. (unless it is
actually a nop in that situation or completely impossible)
>> .arch_extension was implemented because GCC does it. I'm not sure
what
you mean by that, but I'm not happy with removing it, as it will break
scores of assembly files out there.

I put it there to put the choice between being GCC compatible and being
consistent within Clang itself. I've quickly realised that the former is
more important.
>> This makes sense, but will likely require changes in a lot of existing
low-level assembly files, which choose a generic .cpu and vary
.fpu/.arch_extension to implement independent functionality (like
unwinders).

Again I didn't know about that use case. It's definitely a later goal
and I think there needs to be more investigation before we could make any
changes.
>> I strongly recommend that you do not change *any* user-facing
behaviour until the underlying parser changes are done and released
upstream.

After what I've read here I'm fully on board with that.


________________________________
From: Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org>
Sent: 24 September 2018 21:51:01
To: David Spickett
Cc: Clang Dev; LLVM Dev; nd
Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] [RFC] New Clang target selection options for ARM/AArch64

On Fri, 21 Sep 2018 at 11:06, David Spickett via llvm-dev
<llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> Below is a document detailing changes we'd like to make to Clang/LLVM
to improve the usability of the target options for ARM and AArch64.
Hi David,

This is *awesome*. Thanks for such a detailed analysis!

> In this RFC we propose changes to ARM and AArch64 target selection. With
the top level goals to:
> - validate that given options make sense within architectural restrictions
> - make option discovery and documentation easier
> - unify the list of extensions that command lines and asm directives use
> - bring the options closer to GCC's where appropriate
One additional goal we had in the past, when we first wrote the
TargetParser was to use the *existing* target description table-gen
files to generate the parser tables.

This means new changes to cores, sub-arches, and fixes to existing
ones will *automatically* be translated to command line and assembly
parsing.


> Proposed solution
> ------------------
>
> ARM and AArch64:
> - Make the TargetParser the single source for extension names, removing the
AsmParser tables.
> - Reject unknown extension names with a diagnostic that includes a list of
valid extensions for that architecture/CPU.
> - Reject invalid combinations of architecture/CPU and extensions with an
error diagnostic.
> - Add independent subtarget features for each extension so that v8.x+1-a
extensions can be used individually with earlier v8.x-a architectures where
allowed.
SGTM.
> - Emit a warning when a mandatory feature of the base architecture is
enabled with '+extension', or disabled with '+noextension'. (and
ignore the option)
> - Errors caused by the solution above should be able to be downgraded to
warnings with the usual -W* options. This applies only to cases where there is a
reasonable interpretation of the options chosen.
I'd be more comfortable if these weren't enabled by default, but were
present in -Wall.

Writing generic and precise build systems is a nightmare, which is the
biggest reason why compilers generally ignore nonsense options
silently.

> ARM:
> - Allow all possible ARM extensions in the '.arch_extension'
directive, without the '+' syntax
> (allow them to be recognised, they could still be rejected for
compatibility).
> - Reject invalid mfpu and march/mcpu combinations with an error diagnostic.
> - Reject invalid arch/cpu and extension combinations with an error
diagnostic.
SGTM.
> - Add an 'auto' value for -mfpu and make it the default. Meaning
that the FPU is implied by mcpu/march. If mfpu is not auto, it should override
other options and a warning should be emitted.
I'd have assumed -mfpu is already "auto" by default. Or is this to
just override a previous option?

ex: clang -mcpu cortex-a8 -mfpu vfp4 -mfpu auto -> defaults back to VFP3.


> Optional features
> -----------------
>
> AArch64:
> - add the '.arch_extension' directive, with the same behaviour as
ARM (no '+', one extension per directive). This brings Clang in line
with GCC which has this directive for both architectures. Clang does however
allow you to achieve the same thing by using '+' with '.arch'.
>
> ARM:
> - Allow '+' in '.arch' and '.cpu'. GCC does not
allow this, but it would make ARM/AArch64 more consistent within Clang.
I see no reason to be inconsistent with GNU tools here. We can have
more, but we should not have less or different behaviour.

> Use of Table-gen
> ===============>
> We think the benefits outweigh the disadvantages in this case.
Agreed!

> To do this, we would need to move TargetParser to break the cyclic
dependency of LLVMSupport -> llvm-tblgen -> LLVMSupport. There are 2
options for this:
> 1. create a new LLVMTargetParser library that contains all parsers for
architectures that use it.
> 2. put the TargetParser for each backend in the library group for that
backend. This requires one of:
>     * Relaxing the requirement that target parsers must be built even if
the backend is not.
>     * Modifying the CMake scripts to build the target parsers even if the
backend is not being built.
>
> Option 1 is simpler but option 2 would allow us to make use of the existing
tablegen files in the backends so it is preferred.
Option 1 makes everyone pay the cost and can be a lot harder to make
it flexible and "zero-cost". This is the reason why it was changed
from a class-based model to a static function / table model.

I had a go at option 2 years ago and it works. You need to fiddle a
bit with the CMake file in lib/Targets (to prepare the inc files even
if targets aren't being built, because Clang needs to use it for all
supported targets regardless).

It wasn't upstreamed because the hard part is to re-use the existing
table-gen files for a new back-end, which would generate the tables.
Not so much writing the new back-end, but making sure the data we need
isn't redundant or contradictory (which it was both) across all
table-gen files. We also had to add new options to the targets (define
new classes, etc) which were solely used by the parser, so were harder
to justify on its own and needed a much more extensive validation than
we had bandwidth for.

> Consider this AArch64 march:
> -march=armv8.4-a+crypto+nosha2
>
> The base arch is armv8.4-a, the crypto extension turns on
AES/SHA2/SHA3/SM4. The nosha2 disables SHA2/SHA3 (since SHA3 is dependant on
SHA2). Each of these features has an ACLE feature test macro, so Clang needs to
know that nosha2 also disables SHA3.
Is this complex logic done by GCC's front-end as well?

It would be pretty cool to have it smart like that, but we also have
to be careful to have a rock solid model before improving on GCC's
(potentially broken) functionality, and hopefully someone talking to
them on the side.

The amount of noise that comes every time we change the command line
options interpretation is non-trivial. :)

> Errors:
> - unknown extension in an assembly directive (currently fails silently)
IIRC, this is by design.

Imagine a macro that defines .cpu in an asm file to multiple things,
and the rest of the file has .fpu all over the place, with support for
all .cpu options, but with the guarantee that those functions will
only be compiled/executed if the .cpu is correct.

This may sound weird, but some libraries (ex. unwind) actually depend
on weird behaviour like that.

> - extension incompatible with base arch, message shows the base arch it
requires.
> - extension requires another which is disabled later, message shows which
one is required.
> - extension requires another which is not enabled, message shows
requirements.
> - ARM mfpu option is not 'auto' and is incompatible with the base
arch, message shows list of valid FPUs.
Define "incompatible". Older Arm cores could have new features that
wasn't even define in its own standard because manufacturers upgraded
the extra but not the core.

I'm happy to have errors for things that are impossible, like "ARMv5
AArch64" or enabling and disabling intersecting groups that cannot be
represented in the compiler.

I'm happy to have warnings, possibly only under -Wall, for nonsense
options like "ARMv5 VFP4" or "ARMv8A IWMMX".

> Warnings:
> - ARM mfpu option is not auto and another option implies a different FPU
than the mfpu value. The mfpu value will be used, and the message will show what
was overridden.
This is nice.
> - mandatory feature of the base arch is enabled with '+' (option is
redundant so is ignored)
Maybe under -Wall?
> - mandatory feature of a base arch is disabled with
'+no<feature>' (option makes no sense so the extension remains
enabled)
Arm is a flexible architecture, and build systems are crazy. This will
likely confuse a lot of builds in the wild.

I'd avoid it unless in -Wall.

> .arch_extension Directive
> ========================>
> We can handle this in a few of ways:
> - Remove .arch_extension in favour of .arch. This conflicts with the option
above to add it to AArch64 to bring us in line with GCC, and will break a lot of
code written for older versions of Clang.
.arch_extension was implemented because GCC does it. I'm not sure what
you mean by that, but I'm not happy with removing it, as it will break
scores of assembly files out there.
> - Track the current base target, as implied by the command line or the last
.arch/.cpu directive. This makes the directives as similar to the command lines
as they can be without breaking backwards compatibility.
This makes sense, but will likely require changes in a lot of existing
low-level assembly files, which choose a generic .cpu and vary
.fpu/.arch_extension to implement independent functionality (like
unwinders).

If you read the GNU manuals, the assembly directives is more to allow
the assembler to relax checks than enforce them more.

I personally like strong checks, but the problems we have with inline
assembly will come crashing in assembly files if we start tightening
the checks there, too.

It's a worthy long goal, but it's a loooong goal and you don't want
your current TargetParser work to depend on that.

> $ ./clang --target=arm-arm-none-eabi -march=armv7-m -mfpu=neon-fp16 -c
/tmp/test.c -o /tmp/test.o
> (should be invalid but is allowed)
>
> $ ./arm-eabi-gcc -march=armv7-m -mfpu=neon-fp16 -c /tmp/test.c -o
/tmp/test.o
> (same example given for Clang above, should be invalid)
If both are allowed, I'd recommend you not to change it in this
current pass. Let's get the parser fixed before changing overall
behaviour.

> Dependencies within extensions are not checked. For example crypto requires
simd, but it can be disabled in the same march option.
>
> $ ./clang --target=aarch64-arm-none-eabi -march=armv8-a+crypto+nosimd -c
/tmp/test.c -o /tmp/test.o
>
> Extensions are rejected if not recognised but not checked for
compatibility. Hence the Clang crypto/simd example above is allowed with GCC
too.
>
> $ ./aarch64-elf-gcc -march=armv8-a+crypto+nosimd -c /tmp/test.c -o
/tmp/test.o
> (should not be allowed)
This is unlikely to change, let alone in the time frame of your work.

I strongly recommend that you do not change *any* user-facing
behaviour until the underlying parser changes are done and released
upstream.

--
cheers,
--renato
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20180925/8d0ccd10/attachment-0001.html>

Hello David,

Not a lot to add over what Eli and Renato have already mentioned.
> 'auto' FPU value (Renato)
> ===============>
> >> I'd have assumed -mfpu is already "auto" by default.
Or is this to
> >> just override a previous option?
> >>
> >> ex: clang -mcpu cortex-a8 -mfpu vfp4 -mfpu auto -> defaults
back to VFP3.
>
> I don't see any reference to this in the code or the docs, and clang
something similair:
> ./clang --target=arm-arm-none-eabi -mcpu=cortex-a8 -mfpu=vfp4 -mfpu=auto -c
/tmp/test.c
> clang-8: error: the clang compiler does not support '-mfpu=auto'
>
> Maybe I'm missing something.
>
I think what Renato was meaning was that some CPUs already imply an
FPU and hence -mfpu is already "kind of" auto. For example
-mcpu=cortex-m4 implies a FPU.
ARM_CPU_NAME("cortex-m4", ARMV7EM, FK_FPV4_SP_D16, true,
ARM::AEK_NONE)

I think the example "clang -mcpu cortex-a8 -mfpu vfp4 -mfpu auto ->
defaults back to VFP3." was a theoretical what if -mfpu=auto came
after an explicit -mpfu=vfp4, would this result in the default fpu
thus overriding the previous -mfpu=vfp4
> >> Define "incompatible". Older Arm cores could have new
features that
> wasn't even define in its own standard because manufacturers upgraded
> the extra but not the core.
>
> Good point, I suppose "incompatible" in the way I wrote it means
"not listed as an off the shelf config". Which you're right,
doesn't cover everything. So yes, agreed on defaulting to warnings behind
-Wall.
>
I think that post-cortex CPUs are far more locked down in terms of
configurations. If you have an FPU it will always be of the same type.
I agree with Renato that the outside world is considerably messier
than we'd like though. For example compiler-rt builtins for Cortex-m4
currently cheats and specifies a full double precision FPU as there
are some functions (never called and hence never included in a M4
binary but present in the archive) that use double precision floating
point. In compiler-rt's case I think that we should fix that but it
illustrates that there may be other projects that would be affected if
we are too strict.

Looking forward to seeing the results of the work.

Peter

Hi Peter,
>> I think what Renato was meaning was that some CPUs already imply an
>> FPU and hence -mfpu is already "kind of" auto. For example
>> -mcpu=cortex-m4 implies a FPU.
>> ARM_CPU_NAME("cortex-m4", ARMV7EM, FK_FPV4_SP_D16, true,
ARM::AEK_NONE)
Ok I understand now, I'm mixing up current and (possible) future features.
>> clang -mcpu cortex-a8 -mfpu vfp4 -mfpu auto ->defaults back to VFP3.
We would want to keep the current logic here. Which I've observed to be that
the last mfpu wins, overriding the default from mcpu.

$ ./clang --target=arm-arm-none-eabi -mcpu=cortex-a8 -mfpu=vfpv4-d16 -mfpu=vfpv4
-c /tmp/test.c -o /tmp/test.o -###
<...> "-target-feature" "-d16"
"-target-feature" "+vfp4" <...>
$ ./clang --target=arm-arm-none-eabi -mcpu=cortex-a8 -mfpu=vfpv4 -mfpu=vfpv4-d16
-c /tmp/test.c -o /tmp/test.o -###
<...> "-target-feature" "+d16"
"-target-feature" "+vfp4" <...>
(vfp4-d16 wins)

So yes, with the explicit 'auto' you'd revert to the cpu provided
fpu:

$ ./clang --target=arm-arm-none-eabi -mcpu=cortex-a8 -mfpu=vfpv4 -mfpu=auto -c
/tmp/test.c -o /tmp/test.o -###
<...> "-target-feature" "-d16"
"-target-feature" "+vfp3" <...>

(and without the 'auto' we'd emit a warning telling you that you
overrode the 'vfpv3' from mcpu with 'vfpv4' from mfpu)
>> but it illustrates that there may be other projects that would be
affected if we are too strict.
Definitely going to tread lightly when introducing new checks. Just having the
option to enable them is a good place to start.

Thanks,
David Spickett.


________________________________
From: Peter Smith <peter.smith at linaro.org>
Sent: 26 September 2018 12:38:16
To: David Spickett
Cc: Renato Golin; llvm-dev; nd; Clang Dev
Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] [RFC] New Clang target selection options for ARM/AArch64

Hello David,

Not a lot to add over what Eli and Renato have already mentioned.
> 'auto' FPU value (Renato)
> ===============>
> >> I'd have assumed -mfpu is already "auto" by default.
Or is this to
> >> just override a previous option?
> >>
> >> ex: clang -mcpu cortex-a8 -mfpu vfp4 -mfpu auto -> defaults
back to VFP3.
>
> I don't see any reference to this in the code or the docs, and clang
something similair:
> ./clang --target=arm-arm-none-eabi -mcpu=cortex-a8 -mfpu=vfp4 -mfpu=auto -c
/tmp/test.c
> clang-8: error: the clang compiler does not support '-mfpu=auto'
>
> Maybe I'm missing something.
>
I think what Renato was meaning was that some CPUs already imply an
FPU and hence -mfpu is already "kind of" auto. For example
-mcpu=cortex-m4 implies a FPU.
ARM_CPU_NAME("cortex-m4", ARMV7EM, FK_FPV4_SP_D16, true,
ARM::AEK_NONE)

I think the example "clang -mcpu cortex-a8 -mfpu vfp4 -mfpu auto ->
defaults back to VFP3." was a theoretical what if -mfpu=auto came
after an explicit -mpfu=vfp4, would this result in the default fpu
thus overriding the previous -mfpu=vfp4
> >> Define "incompatible". Older Arm cores could have new
features that
> wasn't even define in its own standard because manufacturers upgraded
> the extra but not the core.
>
> Good point, I suppose "incompatible" in the way I wrote it means
"not listed as an off the shelf config". Which you're right,
doesn't cover everything. So yes, agreed on defaulting to warnings behind
-Wall.
>
I think that post-cortex CPUs are far more locked down in terms of
configurations. If you have an FPU it will always be of the same type.
I agree with Renato that the outside world is considerably messier
than we'd like though. For example compiler-rt builtins for Cortex-m4
currently cheats and specifies a full double precision FPU as there
are some functions (never called and hence never included in a M4
binary but present in the archive) that use double precision floating
point. In compiler-rt's case I think that we should fix that but it
illustrates that there may be other projects that would be affected if
we are too strict.

Looking forward to seeing the results of the work.

Peter
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20180927/b4e25cd3/attachment.html>