[cfe-dev] [RFC] Delayed target-specific diagnostic when compiling for the devices.

Alexey Bataev via cfe-dev cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
Thu Jan 17 10:46:55 PST 2019

Best regards,
Alexey Bataev

17.01.2019 13:41, Finkel, Hal J. пишет:
> On 1/17/19 12:18 PM, Alexey Bataev wrote:
>> -------------
>> Best regards,
>> Alexey Bataev
>> 17.01.2019 13:11, Finkel, Hal J. пишет:
>>> On 1/17/19 11:44 AM, Alexey Bataev wrote:
>>>> -------------
>>>> Best regards,
>>>> Alexey Bataev
>>>> 17.01.2019 12:40, Finkel, Hal J. пишет:
>>>>> On 1/17/19 11:11 AM, Alexey Bataev wrote:
>>>>>> The compiler does not know anything about the layout on the host when
>>>>>> it compiles for the device.
>>>>> No, the compiler does know about the host layout (e.g., can't we
>>>>> construct this by calling getContext().getAuxTargetInfo(), or similar?).
>>>> The compiler knows, but the backend is unable to correctly represent
>>>> unsupported types.
>>> To any extent to which this is true, this is something that we can fix.
>>>>>> We cannot do anything with the types that are not supported by the
>>>>>> target device and we cannot use the layout from the host. And it is
>>>>>> user responsibility to write and use the code that is compatible with
>>>>>> the the target devices.
>>>>>> He/she does not need to use macros/void* types, there are templates.
>>>>> No. This doesn't solve the problem (because you still need to share the
>>>>> instantiations between the devices). Also, even if it did, does not
>>>>> address the legacy-code problem that the feature is intended to address.
>>>>> The user already has classes and data on the host and wishes to access
>>>>> *parts* of that data on the device. We should make as much of that work
>>>>> as possible.
>>>> Design your code to be compatible with the both, the host and the device.
>>> Your vantage point here is certainly not the same as mine. From my
>>> perspective, we already have many hundreds of millions of lines of code
>>> and we're incrementally poring that code to use OpenMP and accelerators.
>>> This is not a new top-down design process. We already have data
>>> structures and we want to make accessing those data structures from the
>>> accelerator as easy as possible. We should require as little code change
>>> as possible - we'll have more than enough code change necessary for hot
>>> code regions, and we'd like to minimize necessary changes elsewhere.
>>> Anything that we can find a way to support in this regard, we should.
>> But we should not break the compiler because of this. Plus, don't you
>> think that we may break code reliability?
> I'm proposing no such thing. Or, you say "break" and I say "properly
> implement" :-)

I don't think that what you're saying is "properly implement". For me it
sounds like "let's break the compiler in favor of user code". Or "let's
add a hack in favor of user code".

> We would still need to produce an error in cases where we'd need to
> produce an operation that we couldn't lower. We could also produce
> runtime calls and let linking fail, but an error is better.
>> Introduce possible security issues in the code emitted by the compiler
>> that does not take device restrictions into the account?
> This is not a concern - we'd still fail to produce code that we couldn't
> lower, but only if we need operations that are problematic, not based on
> transitive type referencing.
> Thanks again,
> Hal
>>>>>> You cannot use classes, which use types incompatible with the device.
>>>>>> There is a problem with the data layout on the device and we just
>>>>>> don't know how to represent such classes on the device.
>>>>> There's no reason for this to be true. To be clear, the model of a
>>>>> shared address space only makes sense, from a user perspective, if the
>>>>> data layout is the same between the host and the target. Not mostly
>>>>> similar, but the same. Otherwise, users will constantly be tracking down
>>>>> subtle data-layout incompatibilities.
>>>> That's why he/she must use only types, which are supported and have
>>>> the same data layout on the host and on the device. Otherwise, there
>>>> is data layout incompatibility.
>>> Again, the model only makes sense if the host and device share
>>> data-layout rules. This is true even for types on which we cannot
>>> (efficiently) operate on the accelerator.
>>> Thanks again,
>>> Hal
>>>>> Thanks again,
>>>>> Hal
>>>>>> -------------
>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>> Alexey Bataev
>>>>>> 17.01.2019 11:47, Finkel, Hal J. пишет:
>>>>>>> On 1/17/19 9:52 AM, Alexey Bataev wrote:
>>>>>>>> Because the type is not compatible with the target device.
>>>>>>> But it's not that simple. The situation is that the programming
>>>>>>> environment supports the type, but *operations* on that type are not
>>>>>>> supported in certain contexts (e.g., when compiled for a certain
>>>>>>> device). As you point out, we already need to move in this explicit
>>>>>>> direction by, for example, allowing typedefs for types that are not
>>>>>>> supported in all contexts, function declarations, and so on. In the end,
>>>>>>> we should allow our users to design their classes and abstractions using
>>>>>>> good software-engineering practice without worrying about access-context
>>>>>>> partitioning.
>>>>>>> Also, the other problem here is that the function I used as an example
>>>>>>> is a very common C++ idiom. There are a lot of classes with function
>>>>>>> that return a reference to themselves. Classes can have lots of data
>>>>>>> members, and those members might not be accessed on the device (even if
>>>>>>> the class itself might be accessed on the device). We're moving to a
>>>>>>> world in which unified memory is common - the promise of this technology
>>>>>>> is that configuration data and complex data structures, which might be
>>>>>>> occasionally accessed (but for which explicitly managing data movement
>>>>>>> is not performance relevant) are handled transparently. If use of these
>>>>>>> data structures is transitively poisoned by use of any type not
>>>>>>> supported on the device (including by pointers to types that use those
>>>>>>> types), then we'll force unhelpful and technically-unnecessary
>>>>>>> refactoring, thus reducing the value of the feature.
>>>>>>> In the current implementation we pre-process the source twice, and so we
>>>>>>> can:
>>>>>>>  1. Use ifdefs to change the data memebers when compiling for different
>>>>>>> targets. This is hard to get right because, in order to keep the data
>>>>>>> layout otherwise the same, the user needs to understand the layout rules
>>>>>>> in order to put something in the structure that is supported on the
>>>>>>> target and keeps the layout the same (this is very error prone). Also,
>>>>>>> if we move to a single-preprocessing-stage model, this no longer works.
>>>>>>>  2. Replace all pointers to relevant types with void*, or similar, and
>>>>>>> use a lot of casts. This is also bad.
>>>>>>> We shouldn't be forcing users to play these games. The compiler knows
>>>>>>> the layout on the host and it can use it on the target. The fact that
>>>>>>> some operations on some types might not be supported on the target is
>>>>>>> not relevant to handling pointers/references to containing types.
>>>>>>> Thanks again,
>>>>>>> Hal
>>>>>>>> -------------
>>>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>>> Alexey Bataev
>>>>>>>> 17.01.2019 10:50, Finkel, Hal J. пишет:
>>>>>>>>> On 1/17/19 9:27 AM, Alexey Bataev wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> It should be compilable for the device only iff function foo is not used
>>>>>>>>>> on the device.
>>>>>>>>> Says whom? I disagree. This function should work on the device. Why
>>>>>>>>> should it not?
>>>>>>>>>  -Hal
>>>>>>>>>> -------------
>>>>>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>>>>> Alexey Bataev
>>>>>>>>>> 17.01.2019 10:24, Finkel, Hal J. пишет:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/17/19 4:05 AM, Alexey Bataev wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>> Alexey Bataev
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 17 янв. 2019 г., в 0:46, Finkel, Hal J. <hfinkel at anl.gov> написал(а):
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/16/19 8:45 AM, Alexey Bataev wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, I thought about this. But we need to delay the diagnostic until
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Codegen phase. What I need is the way to associate the diagnostic
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with the function so that this diagnostic is available in CodeGen.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also, we need to postpone the diagnotics not only for functions,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but,for example, for some types. For example, __float128 type is not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> supported by CUDA. We can get error messages when we ran into
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something like `typedef __float128 SomeOtherType` (say, in some system
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> header files) and get the error diagnostic when we compile for the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> device. Though, actually, this type is not used in the device code,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the diagnostic is still emitted and we need to delay too and emit it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> only iff the type is used in the device code.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> This should be fixed for CUDA too, right?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also, we still get to have pointers to aggregates containing those types
>>>>>>>>>>>>> on the device, right?
>>>>>>>>>>>> No, why? This is not allowed and should be diagnosed too. If somebody tries somehow to use not allowed type for the device variables/functions - it should be diagnosed.
>>>>>>>>>>> Because this should be allowed. If I have:
>>>>>>>>>>> struct X {
>>>>>>>>>>>   int a;
>>>>>>>>>>>   __float128 b;
>>>>>>>>>>> };
>>>>>>>>>>> and we have some function which does this:
>>>>>>>>>>> X *foo(X *x) {
>>>>>>>>>>>   return x;
>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>> We'll certainly want this function to compile for all targets, even if
>>>>>>>>>>> there's no __float128 support on some accelerator. The whole model only
>>>>>>>>>>> really makes sense if the accelerator shares the aggregate-layout rules
>>>>>>>>>>> of the host, and this is a needless hassle for users if this causes an
>>>>>>>>>>> error (especially in a unified-memory environment where configuration
>>>>>>>>>>> data structures, etc. are shared between devices).
>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks again,
>>>>>>>>>>> Hal
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks again,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alexey Bataev
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 15.01.2019 17:33, John McCall пишет:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 15 Jan 2019, at 17:20, Alexey Bataev wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is not only for asm, we need to delay all target-specific
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> diagnostics.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm not saying that we need to move the host diagnostic, only the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> diagnostic for the device compilation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As for Cuda, it is a little but different. In Cuda the programmer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> must explicitly mark the device functions,  while in OpenMP it must
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be done implicitly. Thus, we cannot reuse the solution used for Cuda.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All it means is that you can't just use the solution used for CUDA
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "off the shelf".  The basic idea of associating diagnostics with the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> current function and then emitting those diagnostics later when you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> realize that you have to emit that function is still completely
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> applicable.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> John.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hal Finkel
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Lead, Compiler Technology and Programming Languages
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Leadership Computing Facility
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Argonne National Laboratory
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/attachments/20190117/ab9c510b/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/attachments/20190117/ab9c510b/attachment-0001.sig>

More information about the cfe-dev mailing list