[cfe-dev] constexpr JIT?

John McCall via cfe-dev cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
Mon Nov 6 10:17:12 PST 2017


> On Nov 4, 2017, at 12:09 PM, Tim Rakowski via cfe-dev <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> 
> TLDR: Is there any work going on to drastically improve constexpr evaluation
>       speed?

I am not aware of any, no.  If you're willing to share some of your intermediate programs
with us, I suspect there are a number of things we could do to speed up constexpr evaluation
short of actually taking on the massive complexity cost of using a JIT.  In particular, our value
representation is not particularly tuned, and the constant evaluator probably does a lot of
deep copies.

John.

> 
> 
> after watching "constexpr ALL the things!"
> (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMB9oXFobJc <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMB9oXFobJc>) I started making my hobby
> lexer/parser generator library constexpr as well, which turned out to be just as
> easy as advertised. There where two problems I could deal with relativly easily:
> 
> a) gcc exhausts any available memory. So switch to clang.
> b) clang 5.0.0 has the constexpr constructor bug 
>    (https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=19741 <https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=19741>), so build clang from source.
> c) -fconstexpr-steps=-1
> 
> The only obstacle left (except for missing placement new and having to
> initialize all memory) are the slow, slow slow compile times. I'm talking about
> "I don't even know if it will ever end", before I started optimizing for 
> constexpr evaluation. I have been able to decrease the compile time to 20
> minutes, then 15 minutes, then 10 minutes, ... etc. There was no "Oh, I
> accidentally used a bad algorithm." or "Oh, the compiler doesn't handle X very
> well.". Just incrementally optimizing the code for compile time evaluation.
> 
> By now I am down to 3 minutes for my "test case" of constructing a minimal DFA 
> for a json Lexer including
> 
> a) parsing the Regexes for json terminals and constructing an NFA,
> b) constructing the corresponding DFA based on the NFA,
> c) minimizing the DFA (Hopcroft's algorithm).
> 
> I'm basically using algorithms described in the Dragon Book.
> 
> With -O0 and disabling constexpr, this runs in 0.275 seconds. I have
> continuously improved the compilation time by profiling and optimizing the -O0 
> build first with perf tools and then with callgrind. Here is what I learned:
> 
> a) Just reduce the number of operations necessary to compute the result.
> b) Ignore cache locality.
> c) Abstraction is too expensive. Inline everything manually.
> 
> While this is a fascinating experience that goes against everything I learned
> about optimization in the past few years, it obviously hinders the idea of being
> able to use constexpr functions both at compile time AND at run time.
> 
> So of course I would prefer it if compile time evaluation speed would be
> comparable to, say, an interpreted language. Maybe one using just-in-time
> compilation like LLVM (hint, hint). Of course you can't just compile and run the 
> constexpr code because undefined behavior must be "trapped". But running a
> no-undefined-behavior version of C++ would be cool, I think. Even if it
> certainly would be a lot of work ... 
> 
> Is there any work going on in that direction? Am I missing something?
> 
> Regards,
> Tim Rakowski
> _______________________________________________
> cfe-dev mailing list
> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/attachments/20171106/93d646af/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the cfe-dev mailing list