llvm dev - Oct 2021 - target ABI: call parameters handling

On Mon, Oct 4, 2021 at 8:05 AM Jonas Paulsson <paulsson at
linux.vnet.ibm.com>
wrote:
> Hi Reid,
>
> I don't think it would be reasonable for the SystemZ backend to abort
> every time it is asked to code generate an i32 argument that lacks an
> attribute. There are simply too many IR producers (frontends and
> instrumentation tools) that will pass unannotated i32 values to calls.
It's
> not feasible to fix them all, and aborting just means these producers will
> have to be updated whenever they are ported to SystemZ or any other target
> adopting the same practice.
>
> I think it would instead be reasonable to pick a safer default for the
> target, like always zero extending unannotated parameters on both the
> caller side and the callee side. This is less efficient than only extending
> once in the caller, but it makes it much easier to retarget an IR producer
> over to SystemZ. It makes the attributes into performance improvements, not
> correctness requirements. I suspect this will not actually break passing a
> 4 byte struct, it just makes it less efficient.
>
> As Uli explained, this is not an optimization but actually really
> necessary in order to perform the right extension. I don't think there
is
> any way around fixing this the slow and arduous way :-/
>
Well, the annotation isn't strictly necessary. The backend can choose to
emit an extension for short integer arguments in the absence of
annotations. The value would be to reduce the number of SystemZ-specific
changes to IR producers. It would be a shame if i32 arguments just didn't
work out of the box on SystemZ. That will be an ongoing source of IR
producer bugs.

In any case, I don't feel like my argument is all that compelling. If you
and the SystemZ owners feel like this is the best plan, go for it.

The same problem exists for i16 and i8 arguments on x86, BTW:
https://gcc.godbolt.org/z/7dds6sfv8 These are much less common argument
types, but you might consider expanding the scope of this proposal.
> As for the suggestion to add an explicit structarg attribute, can this be
> generalized to an attribute that marks the high bits as undef? So, IR
> producers will have a portable way to explicitly request the current
> behavior. This is kind of like `anyext`, but not really, more like
> `undefext`, `uext`, `hiundef` or `calleemustextend`.
>
> What do you think?
>
> I agree that some more general attribute could work as well to mean for a
> parameter that it is not an integer value and no extension is therefore
> required per the ABI. The important thing about the name is that whoever
> builds the call instruction needs to be aware that it is only for
> non-integer values - the other trap to fall into I guess might be that
> 'anyext' could be added carelessly on integers when it seems that
it might
> not matter, even when it really does per the ABI... :-)  Maybe the name
> 'anyext' would make people think that it will be extended one way
or the
> other, which is not true. I think I like your 'hiundef' better...
Or maybe
> 'nonint', or 'noext'?
>
> Do you agree we need to do this, and what would the next step be towards
> getting this in place? If we decide on the attribute to use, I could
> implement the assertion and start filing bugs and hopefully get some help
> with them as well... Even though this may not be "feasible", I
hope this
> would eventually lead to having this working correctly, or is there any
> reason not?
>
I think I like `noext`, it fits well with the existing attributes.

As for next steps, we need to settle on the name. If you like `noext`, send
a patch, CC some other folks and see if they like the name.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20211005/d14a26ff/attachment.html>

"Reid Kleckner" <rnk at google.com> wrote on 06.10.2021
04:31:15:
> Well, the annotation isn't strictly necessary. The backend can
> choose to emit an extension for short integer arguments in the
> absence of annotations.
As I commented in another mail, unfortunately this is not true.
To ensure correct codegen in all cases, we need to know *which*
extension the callee expects: zero- or sign-extension.  The
backend cannot know this without being told by the frontend.


Bye,
Ulrich
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20211006/fda601d0/attachment.html>