[llvm-dev] RFC: ConstantData should not have use-lists
Duncan P. N. Exon Smith via llvm-dev
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Mon Sep 26 19:23:33 PDT 2016
> On 2016-Sep-26, at 11:11, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 4:39 PM Duncan P. N. Exon Smith via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote:
> > On 2016-Sep-24, at 15:16, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com <mailto:mehdi.amini at apple.com>> wrote:
> >> On Sep 24, 2016, at 3:06 PM, Duncan P. N. Exon Smith via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote:
> >> r261464 added a type called ConstantData to the Value hierarchy. This
> >> is a parent type for constants with no operands, such as i32 0 and null.
> >> Since then, I've removed most instances of iterating through the
> >> use-lists of an instance of ConstantData. I'd like to make this
> >> illegal. Since the users of ConstantData are spread across an
> >> LLVMContext, most code that looks at the users is wrong. Adding an
> >> assertion should catch a lot of bugs (see r263853 and r263875) and
> >> avoid some expensive walks through uninteresting code.
> >> (The same is not true of Constant, generally. A GlobalValue's use-list
> >> will local to the GlobalValue's Module. Any ConstantVector,
> >> ConstantArray, or ConstantStruct that points at a GlobalValue will also
> >> be local to the same Module. In these cases, we also need RAUW
> >> support.)
> >> Besides catching bugs, removing use-lists from ConstantData will
> >> guarantee that the compiler output *does not* depend on the use-list
> >> order of something like i32 0.
> >> Finally, this should dramatically reduce the overhead of serializing
> >> use-list order in bitcode. We will no longer track the arbitrary
> >> order of references to things like i32 0 and null.
> >> What's left?
> >> ============
> >> I just filed PR30513 to track remaining work.
> >> 1. Avoid the remaining uses of ConstantData use-lists. There are only
> >> a couple of cases left, highlighted in the WIP HACK patches attached
> >> below (0001 and 0002).
> >> 2. Remove the use-lists! Replace them with ref-counts to keep most of
> >> the use-list API functional (and minimize the size of the change).
> >> See the WIP patch below (0003).
> >> 3. (Optional) Remove use-lists from other non-GlobalValue Constants
> >> that do not reference any GlobalValues. This would require some
> >> sort of magic in, e.g., ConstantVector to conditionally have a
> >> use-list.
> > I wonder if the constant class hierarchy should not be revisited in light of this?
> > For instance you identified that some are local to a module while others are “context-wide”.
> > I haven’t given too much thoughts about this, but I'm curious if you did?
> You mean something like PureConstantVector (which cannot transitively reference GlobalValue) vs ConstantVectorWithGlobalRef (which can/must transitively reference GlobalValue), right? (And also for ConstantStruct, ConstantArray, and ConstantExpr, etc.)
> I hadn't considered that, and it seems worth thinking about. I'm unsure whether using isa<>() would really be cleaner than using Value::hasUseList; and it would certainly be intrusive. Do you see any concrete benefits?
> One possible long-term thing (after #4)... we could add ConstantDataUser (vs. User), which can only reference a Constant-with-no-GlobalValue, and has operands the size of a pointer. Obviously nice to save on operand-size, but I'm not convinced it would save sufficient memory to be worthwhile: IIRC, Instruction accounts for most instances of User.
> FWIW, I still would find this interesting, at least for conceptual improvements in the IR.
> I'd really like it if we could separate the ideas of true constants (that are inherently foldable and don't need use lists) and things that transitively reference globals.
> Recently I've been thinking that the split which might make sense would be to have Constants which have no use-lists and must be manifest (no references to globals, and GlobalExprs which have use lists and can reference Globals (as wall as Constants).
Note this naming somewhat implies GlobalVector/GlobalArray/GlobalStruct. Not sure those are bad/wrong names, but they sound a little like a GlobalObject to me.
Unless.... would we actually need all three of GlobalArray + ConstantArray + ConstantDataArray? Or would we only have GlobalArray and ConstantDataArray, because of constant-folding?
> This might in turn allow us to consider better models for things like expanding constantexprs that don't fit any relocations on the platform.
> Personally, I'd probably stop after your #2 unless/until we do something to re-think the class hierarchy here.
Yup, makes sense to me. Thanks for the input!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the llvm-dev