mirror of
https://github.com/RPCS3/llvm-mirror.git
synced 2024-11-24 03:33:20 +01:00
335 lines
13 KiB
ReStructuredText
335 lines
13 KiB
ReStructuredText
================================
|
|
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
|
|
================================
|
|
|
|
.. contents::
|
|
:local:
|
|
|
|
|
|
License
|
|
=======
|
|
|
|
Can I modify LLVM source code and redistribute the modified source?
|
|
-------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
Yes. The modified source distribution must retain the copyright notice and
|
|
follow the conditions listed in the `LLVM license
|
|
<http://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk/LICENSE.TXT>`_.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Can I modify the LLVM source code and redistribute binaries or other tools based on it, without redistributing the source?
|
|
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
Yes. This is why we distribute LLVM under a less restrictive license than GPL,
|
|
as explained in the first question above.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Source Code
|
|
===========
|
|
|
|
In what language is LLVM written?
|
|
---------------------------------
|
|
All of the LLVM tools and libraries are written in C++ with extensive use of
|
|
the STL.
|
|
|
|
|
|
How portable is the LLVM source code?
|
|
-------------------------------------
|
|
The LLVM source code should be portable to most modern Unix-like operating
|
|
systems. LLVM has also excellent support on Windows systems.
|
|
Most of the code is written in standard C++ with operating system
|
|
services abstracted to a support library. The tools required to build and
|
|
test LLVM have been ported to a plethora of platforms.
|
|
|
|
|
|
What API do I use to store a value to one of the virtual registers in LLVM IR's SSA representation?
|
|
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
In short: you can't. It's actually kind of a silly question once you grok
|
|
what's going on. Basically, in code like:
|
|
|
|
.. code-block:: llvm
|
|
|
|
%result = add i32 %foo, %bar
|
|
|
|
, ``%result`` is just a name given to the ``Value`` of the ``add``
|
|
instruction. In other words, ``%result`` *is* the add instruction. The
|
|
"assignment" doesn't explicitly "store" anything to any "virtual register";
|
|
the "``=``" is more like the mathematical sense of equality.
|
|
|
|
Longer explanation: In order to generate a textual representation of the
|
|
IR, some kind of name has to be given to each instruction so that other
|
|
instructions can textually reference it. However, the isomorphic in-memory
|
|
representation that you manipulate from C++ has no such restriction since
|
|
instructions can simply keep pointers to any other ``Value``'s that they
|
|
reference. In fact, the names of dummy numbered temporaries like ``%1`` are
|
|
not explicitly represented in the in-memory representation at all (see
|
|
``Value::getName()``).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Source Languages
|
|
================
|
|
|
|
What source languages are supported?
|
|
------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
LLVM currently has full support for C and C++ source languages through
|
|
`Clang <http://clang.llvm.org/>`_. Many other language frontends have
|
|
been written using LLVM, and an incomplete list is available at
|
|
`projects with LLVM <http://llvm.org/ProjectsWithLLVM/>`_.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'd like to write a self-hosting LLVM compiler. How should I interface with the LLVM middle-end optimizers and back-end code generators?
|
|
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
Your compiler front-end will communicate with LLVM by creating a module in the
|
|
LLVM intermediate representation (IR) format. Assuming you want to write your
|
|
language's compiler in the language itself (rather than C++), there are 3
|
|
major ways to tackle generating LLVM IR from a front-end:
|
|
|
|
1. **Call into the LLVM libraries code using your language's FFI (foreign
|
|
function interface).**
|
|
|
|
* *for:* best tracks changes to the LLVM IR, .ll syntax, and .bc format
|
|
|
|
* *for:* enables running LLVM optimization passes without a emit/parse
|
|
overhead
|
|
|
|
* *for:* adapts well to a JIT context
|
|
|
|
* *against:* lots of ugly glue code to write
|
|
|
|
2. **Emit LLVM assembly from your compiler's native language.**
|
|
|
|
* *for:* very straightforward to get started
|
|
|
|
* *against:* the .ll parser is slower than the bitcode reader when
|
|
interfacing to the middle end
|
|
|
|
* *against:* it may be harder to track changes to the IR
|
|
|
|
3. **Emit LLVM bitcode from your compiler's native language.**
|
|
|
|
* *for:* can use the more-efficient bitcode reader when interfacing to the
|
|
middle end
|
|
|
|
* *against:* you'll have to re-engineer the LLVM IR object model and bitcode
|
|
writer in your language
|
|
|
|
* *against:* it may be harder to track changes to the IR
|
|
|
|
If you go with the first option, the C bindings in include/llvm-c should help
|
|
a lot, since most languages have strong support for interfacing with C. The
|
|
most common hurdle with calling C from managed code is interfacing with the
|
|
garbage collector. The C interface was designed to require very little memory
|
|
management, and so is straightforward in this regard.
|
|
|
|
What support is there for a higher level source language constructs for building a compiler?
|
|
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
Currently, there isn't much. LLVM supports an intermediate representation
|
|
which is useful for code representation but will not support the high level
|
|
(abstract syntax tree) representation needed by most compilers. There are no
|
|
facilities for lexical nor semantic analysis.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't understand the ``GetElementPtr`` instruction. Help!
|
|
-----------------------------------------------------------
|
|
See `The Often Misunderstood GEP Instruction <GetElementPtr.html>`_.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Using the C and C++ Front Ends
|
|
==============================
|
|
|
|
Can I compile C or C++ code to platform-independent LLVM bitcode?
|
|
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
No. C and C++ are inherently platform-dependent languages. The most obvious
|
|
example of this is the preprocessor. A very common way that C code is made
|
|
portable is by using the preprocessor to include platform-specific code. In
|
|
practice, information about other platforms is lost after preprocessing, so
|
|
the result is inherently dependent on the platform that the preprocessing was
|
|
targeting.
|
|
|
|
Another example is ``sizeof``. It's common for ``sizeof(long)`` to vary
|
|
between platforms. In most C front-ends, ``sizeof`` is expanded to a
|
|
constant immediately, thus hard-wiring a platform-specific detail.
|
|
|
|
Also, since many platforms define their ABIs in terms of C, and since LLVM is
|
|
lower-level than C, front-ends currently must emit platform-specific IR in
|
|
order to have the result conform to the platform ABI.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Questions about code generated by the demo page
|
|
===============================================
|
|
|
|
What is this ``llvm.global_ctors`` and ``_GLOBAL__I_a...`` stuff that happens when I ``#include <iostream>``?
|
|
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
If you ``#include`` the ``<iostream>`` header into a C++ translation unit,
|
|
the file will probably use the ``std::cin``/``std::cout``/... global objects.
|
|
However, C++ does not guarantee an order of initialization between static
|
|
objects in different translation units, so if a static ctor/dtor in your .cpp
|
|
file used ``std::cout``, for example, the object would not necessarily be
|
|
automatically initialized before your use.
|
|
|
|
To make ``std::cout`` and friends work correctly in these scenarios, the STL
|
|
that we use declares a static object that gets created in every translation
|
|
unit that includes ``<iostream>``. This object has a static constructor
|
|
and destructor that initializes and destroys the global iostream objects
|
|
before they could possibly be used in the file. The code that you see in the
|
|
``.ll`` file corresponds to the constructor and destructor registration code.
|
|
|
|
If you would like to make it easier to *understand* the LLVM code generated
|
|
by the compiler in the demo page, consider using ``printf()`` instead of
|
|
``iostream``\s to print values.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Where did all of my code go??
|
|
-----------------------------
|
|
If you are using the LLVM demo page, you may often wonder what happened to
|
|
all of the code that you typed in. Remember that the demo script is running
|
|
the code through the LLVM optimizers, so if your code doesn't actually do
|
|
anything useful, it might all be deleted.
|
|
|
|
To prevent this, make sure that the code is actually needed. For example, if
|
|
you are computing some expression, return the value from the function instead
|
|
of leaving it in a local variable. If you really want to constrain the
|
|
optimizer, you can read from and assign to ``volatile`` global variables.
|
|
|
|
|
|
What is this "``undef``" thing that shows up in my code?
|
|
--------------------------------------------------------
|
|
``undef`` is the LLVM way of representing a value that is not defined. You
|
|
can get these if you do not initialize a variable before you use it. For
|
|
example, the C function:
|
|
|
|
.. code-block:: c
|
|
|
|
int X() { int i; return i; }
|
|
|
|
Is compiled to "``ret i32 undef``" because "``i``" never has a value specified
|
|
for it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why does instcombine + simplifycfg turn a call to a function with a mismatched calling convention into "unreachable"? Why not make the verifier reject it?
|
|
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
This is a common problem run into by authors of front-ends that are using
|
|
custom calling conventions: you need to make sure to set the right calling
|
|
convention on both the function and on each call to the function. For
|
|
example, this code:
|
|
|
|
.. code-block:: llvm
|
|
|
|
define fastcc void @foo() {
|
|
ret void
|
|
}
|
|
define void @bar() {
|
|
call void @foo()
|
|
ret void
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
Is optimized to:
|
|
|
|
.. code-block:: llvm
|
|
|
|
define fastcc void @foo() {
|
|
ret void
|
|
}
|
|
define void @bar() {
|
|
unreachable
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
... with "``opt -instcombine -simplifycfg``". This often bites people because
|
|
"all their code disappears". Setting the calling convention on the caller and
|
|
callee is required for indirect calls to work, so people often ask why not
|
|
make the verifier reject this sort of thing.
|
|
|
|
The answer is that this code has undefined behavior, but it is not illegal.
|
|
If we made it illegal, then every transformation that could potentially create
|
|
this would have to ensure that it doesn't, and there is valid code that can
|
|
create this sort of construct (in dead code). The sorts of things that can
|
|
cause this to happen are fairly contrived, but we still need to accept them.
|
|
Here's an example:
|
|
|
|
.. code-block:: llvm
|
|
|
|
define fastcc void @foo() {
|
|
ret void
|
|
}
|
|
define internal void @bar(void()* %FP, i1 %cond) {
|
|
br i1 %cond, label %T, label %F
|
|
T:
|
|
call void %FP()
|
|
ret void
|
|
F:
|
|
call fastcc void %FP()
|
|
ret void
|
|
}
|
|
define void @test() {
|
|
%X = or i1 false, false
|
|
call void @bar(void()* @foo, i1 %X)
|
|
ret void
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
In this example, "test" always passes ``@foo``/``false`` into ``bar``, which
|
|
ensures that it is dynamically called with the right calling conv (thus, the
|
|
code is perfectly well defined). If you run this through the inliner, you
|
|
get this (the explicit "or" is there so that the inliner doesn't dead code
|
|
eliminate a bunch of stuff):
|
|
|
|
.. code-block:: llvm
|
|
|
|
define fastcc void @foo() {
|
|
ret void
|
|
}
|
|
define void @test() {
|
|
%X = or i1 false, false
|
|
br i1 %X, label %T.i, label %F.i
|
|
T.i:
|
|
call void @foo()
|
|
br label %bar.exit
|
|
F.i:
|
|
call fastcc void @foo()
|
|
br label %bar.exit
|
|
bar.exit:
|
|
ret void
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
Here you can see that the inlining pass made an undefined call to ``@foo``
|
|
with the wrong calling convention. We really don't want to make the inliner
|
|
have to know about this sort of thing, so it needs to be valid code. In this
|
|
case, dead code elimination can trivially remove the undefined code. However,
|
|
if ``%X`` was an input argument to ``@test``, the inliner would produce this:
|
|
|
|
.. code-block:: llvm
|
|
|
|
define fastcc void @foo() {
|
|
ret void
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
define void @test(i1 %X) {
|
|
br i1 %X, label %T.i, label %F.i
|
|
T.i:
|
|
call void @foo()
|
|
br label %bar.exit
|
|
F.i:
|
|
call fastcc void @foo()
|
|
br label %bar.exit
|
|
bar.exit:
|
|
ret void
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
The interesting thing about this is that ``%X`` *must* be false for the
|
|
code to be well-defined, but no amount of dead code elimination will be able
|
|
to delete the broken call as unreachable. However, since
|
|
``instcombine``/``simplifycfg`` turns the undefined call into unreachable, we
|
|
end up with a branch on a condition that goes to unreachable: a branch to
|
|
unreachable can never happen, so "``-inline -instcombine -simplifycfg``" is
|
|
able to produce:
|
|
|
|
.. code-block:: llvm
|
|
|
|
define fastcc void @foo() {
|
|
ret void
|
|
}
|
|
define void @test(i1 %X) {
|
|
F.i:
|
|
call fastcc void @foo()
|
|
ret void
|
|
}
|