[llvm-dev] RFC: Strong GC References in LLVM
Sanjoy Das via llvm-dev
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Thu Jul 14 20:21:07 PDT 2016
Chandler Carruth wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 4:48 PM Sanjoy Das via llvm-dev
> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote:
> Hi all,
> It looks like the key controversial point is the bit about the extra
> control dependence on loads and stores. Generally the
> that (please chime if you think otherwise) it is not reasonable to
> make the safety (or semantics) of a load instruction depend on the
> type it is loading. Introducing such a thing would involve changing
> the IR semantics in a fundamental way, and therefore has a high bar
> for acceptance.
> Here is a summary of the alternative solutions that were proposed
> and on IRC (thanks Chandler, Andy, Eli!):
> Thanks for writing up the summary, sorry I didn't summarize #2 for you
> as I had promised. ;]
No problem; thanks for your help on IRC. :)
> 2. Introduce a flag on load and stores that either
> a. Denotes a "gc_safety" control dependence.
> b. Denotes a "blackbox_safety" control dependence. In
> we will probably have some optional metadata on loads and
> stores to indicate that the control dependence is
> GC safety.
> Suggested name for 2b: "unsafe" or "predicated". Essentially, that the
> load is not generally safe to do even if the *memory* is generally safe
> to load from because of some external effect.
Yes, that's exactly my intent.
> As a starting point, LLVM will conservatively not speculate
> loads and stores; and will leave open the potential to upstream
> logic that will have a more precise sense of when these
> stores are safe to speculate.
> 3. Introduce a general way to denote control dependence on
> stores. This can be helpful to LLVM in general, and will
> basically implement a more precise version of (2).
> I actually think there is a pretty clean incremental path from 2a to 3
Reading the rest of what you wrote, it looks like you meant "from 2b
> here. We can start with just the basic "there is something control
> dependent about this" and use metadata to experiment with communicating
> it to the optimizer. If we come up with something really general and
> precise, we can fold it into the blanket thing, but until then we don't
> scope creep or put something into the IR.
> One thing you didn't mention is that this requires a matching function
> attribute too so that we can distinguish between a call site that reads
> memory and a call site that reads memory in a way that is potentially
Yes, thanks for bringing this up.
One interesting possibility is to not make this function attribute
specific to memory at all. Then we can use it to communicate "this
function may have undefined behavior", and fearlessly hoist "readnone
nounwind" functions that are not also "unsafe".
More information about the llvm-dev