1
0
mirror of https://github.com/RPCS3/llvm-mirror.git synced 2024-11-01 00:12:50 +01:00
llvm-mirror/docs/tutorial/LangImpl7.html

299 lines
10 KiB
HTML
Raw Normal View History

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd">
<html>
<head>
<title>Kaleidoscope: Extending the Language: Mutable Variables / SSA
construction</title>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="author" content="Chris Lattner">
<link rel="stylesheet" href="../llvm.css" type="text/css">
</head>
<body>
<div class="doc_title">Kaleidoscope: Extending the Language: Mutable Variables</div>
<div class="doc_author">
<p>Written by <a href="mailto:sabre@nondot.org">Chris Lattner</a></p>
</div>
<!-- *********************************************************************** -->
<div class="doc_section"><a name="intro">Part 7 Introduction</a></div>
<!-- *********************************************************************** -->
<div class="doc_text">
<p>Welcome to Part 7 of the "<a href="index.html">Implementing a language with
LLVM</a>" tutorial. In parts 1 through 6, we've built a very respectable,
albeit simple, <a
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_programming">functional
programming language</a>. In our journey, we learned some parsing techniques,
how to build and represent an AST, how to build LLVM IR, and how to optimize
the resultant code and JIT compile it.</p>
<p>While Kaleidoscope is interesting as a functional language, this makes it
"too easy" to generate LLVM IR for it. In particular, a functional language
makes it very easy to build LLVM IR directly in <a
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Static_single_assignment_form">SSA form</a>.
Since LLVM requires that the input code be in SSA form, this is a very nice
property and it is often unclear to newcomers how to generate code for an
imperative language with mutable variables.</p>
<p>The short (and happy) summary of this chapter is that there is no need for
your front-end to build SSA form: LLVM provides highly tuned and well tested
support for this, though the way it works is a bit unexpected for some.</p>
</div>
<!-- *********************************************************************** -->
<div class="doc_section"><a name="why">Why is this a hard problem?</a></div>
<!-- *********************************************************************** -->
<div class="doc_text">
<p>
To understand why mutable variables cause complexities in SSA construction,
consider this extremely simple C example:
</p>
<div class="doc_code">
<pre>
int G, H;
int test(_Bool Condition) {
int X;
if (Condition)
X = G;
else
X = H;
return X;
}
</pre>
</div>
<p>In this case, we have the variable "X", whose value depends on the path
executed in the program. Because there are two different possible values for X
before the return instruction, a PHI node is inserted to merge the two values.
The LLVM IR that we want for this example looks like this:</p>
<div class="doc_code">
<pre>
@G = weak global i32 0 ; type of @G is i32*
@H = weak global i32 0 ; type of @H is i32*
define i32 @test(i1 %Condition) {
entry:
br i1 %Condition, label %cond_true, label %cond_false
cond_true:
%X.0 = load i32* @G
br label %cond_next
cond_false:
%X.1 = load i32* @H
br label %cond_next
cond_next:
%X.2 = phi i32 [ %X.1, %cond_false ], [ %X.0, %cond_true ]
ret i32 %X.2
}
</pre>
</div>
<p>In this example, the loads from the G and H global variables are explicit in
the LLVM IR, and they live in the then/else branches of the if statement
(cond_true/cond_false). In order to merge the incoming values, the X.2 phi node
in the cond_next block selects the right value to use based on where control
flow is coming from: if control flow comes from the cond_false block, X.2 gets
the value of X.1. Alternatively, if control flow comes from cond_tree, it gets
the value of X.0. The intent of this chapter is not to explain the details of
SSA form. For more information, see one of the many <a
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Static_single_assignment_form">online
references</a>.</p>
<p>The question for this article is "who places phi nodes when lowering
assignments to mutable variables?". The issue here is that LLVM
<em>requires</em> that its IR be in SSA form: there is no "non-ssa" mode for it.
However, SSA construction requires non-trivial algorithms and data structures,
so it is inconvenient and wasteful for every front-end to have to reproduce this
logic.</p>
</div>
<!-- *********************************************************************** -->
<div class="doc_section"><a name="memory">Memory in LLVM</a></div>
<!-- *********************************************************************** -->
<div class="doc_text">
<p>The 'trick' here is that while LLVM does require all register values to be
in SSA form, it does not require (or permit) memory objects to be in SSA form.
In the example above, note that the loads from G and H are direct accesses to
G and H: they are not renamed or versioned. This differs from some other
compiler systems, which does try to version memory objects. In LLVM, instead of
encoding dataflow analysis of memory into the LLVM IR, it is handled with <a
href="../WritingAnLLVMPass.html">Analysis Passes</a> which are computed on
demand.</p>
<p>
With this in mind, the high-level idea is that we want to make a stack variable
(which lives in memory, because it is on the stack) for each mutable object in
a function. To take advantage of this trick, we need to talk about how LLVM
represents stack variables.
</p>
<p>In LLVM, all memory accesses are explicit with load/store instructions, and
it is carefully designed to not have (or need) an "address-of" operator. Notice
how the type of the @G/@H global variables is actually "i32*" even though the
variable is defined as "i32". What this means is that @G defines <em>space</em>
for an i32 in the global data area, but its <em>name</em> actually refers to the
address for that space. Stack variables work the same way, but instead of being
declared with global variable definitions, they are declared with the
<a href="../LangRef.html#i_alloca">LLVM alloca instruction</a>:</p>
<div class="doc_code">
<pre>
define i32 @test(i1 %Condition) {
entry:
%X = alloca i32 ; type of %X is i32*.
...
%tmp = load i32* %X ; load the stack value %X from the stack.
%tmp2 = add i32 %tmp, 1 ; increment it
store i32 %tmp2, i32* %X ; store it back
...
</pre>
</div>
<p>This code shows an example of how you can declare and manipulate a stack
variable in the LLVM IR. Stack memory allocated with the alloca instruction is
fully general: you can pass the address of the stack slot to functions, you can
store it in other variables, etc. In our example above, we could rewrite the
example to use the alloca technique to avoid using a PHI node:</p>
<div class="doc_code">
<pre>
@G = weak global i32 0 ; type of @G is i32*
@H = weak global i32 0 ; type of @H is i32*
define i32 @test(i1 %Condition) {
entry:
%X = alloca i32 ; type of %X is i32*.
br i1 %Condition, label %cond_true, label %cond_false
cond_true:
%X.0 = load i32* @G
store i32 %X.0, i32* %X ; Update X
br label %cond_next
cond_false:
%X.1 = load i32* @H
store i32 %X.1, i32* %X ; Update X
br label %cond_next
cond_next:
%X.2 = load i32* %X ; Read X
ret i32 %X.2
}
</pre>
</div>
<p>With this, we have discovered a way to handle arbitrary mutable variables
without the need to create Phi nodes at all:</p>
<ol>
<li>Each mutable variable becomes a stack allocation.</li>
<li>Each read of the variable becomes a load from the stack.</li>
<li>Each update of the variable becomes a store to the stack.</li>
<li>Taking the address of a variable just uses the stack address directly.</li>
</ol>
<p>While this solution has solved our immediate problem, it introduced another
one: we have now apparently introduced a lot of stack traffic for very simple
and common operations, a major performance problem. Fortunately for us, the
LLVM optimizer has a highly-tuned optimization pass named "mem2reg" that handles
this case, promoting allocas like this into SSA registers, inserting Phi nodes
as appropriate. If you run this example through the pass, for example, you'll
get:</p>
<div class="doc_code">
<pre>
$ <b>llvm-as &lt; example.ll | opt -mem2reg | llvm-dis</b>
@G = weak global i32 0
@H = weak global i32 0
define i32 @test(i1 %Condition) {
entry:
br i1 %Condition, label %cond_true, label %cond_false
cond_true:
%X.0 = load i32* @G
br label %cond_next
cond_false:
%X.1 = load i32* @H
br label %cond_next
cond_next:
%X.01 = phi i32 [ %X.1, %cond_false ], [ %X.0, %cond_true ]
ret i32 %X.01
}
</pre>
<p>The mem2reg pass is guaranteed to work, and
which cases.
</p>
<p>The final question you may be asking is: should I bother with this nonsense
for my front-end? Wouldn't it be better if I just did SSA construction
directly, avoiding use of the mem2reg optimization pass?
Proven, well tested, debug info, etc.
</p>
</div>
<!-- *********************************************************************** -->
<div class="doc_section"><a name="code">Full Code Listing</a></div>
<!-- *********************************************************************** -->
<div class="doc_text">
<p>
Here is the complete code listing for our running example, enhanced with the
if/then/else and for expressions.. To build this example, use:
</p>
<div class="doc_code">
<pre>
# Compile
g++ -g toy.cpp `llvm-config --cppflags --ldflags --libs core jit native` -O3 -o toy
# Run
./toy
</pre>
</div>
<p>Here is the code:</p>
<div class="doc_code">
<pre>
</pre>
</div>
</div>
<!-- *********************************************************************** -->
<hr>
<address>
<a href="http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/check/referer"><img
src="http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/images/vcss" alt="Valid CSS!"></a>
<a href="http://validator.w3.org/check/referer"><img
src="http://www.w3.org/Icons/valid-html401" alt="Valid HTML 4.01!"></a>
<a href="mailto:sabre@nondot.org">Chris Lattner</a><br>
<a href="http://llvm.org">The LLVM Compiler Infrastructure</a><br>
Last modified: $Date: 2007-10-17 11:05:13 -0700 (Wed, 17 Oct 2007) $
</address>
</body>
</html>