trivial_abi
John McCall via cfe-commits
cfe-commits at lists.llvm.org
Wed Jan 3 14:29:58 PST 2018
> On Jan 3, 2018, at 5:12 PM, Richard Smith <richard at metafoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> On 2 January 2018 at 20:55, John McCall via cfe-commits <cfe-commits at lists.llvm.org <mailto:cfe-commits at lists.llvm.org>> wrote:
>> On Jan 2, 2018, at 10:43 PM, Richard Smith <richard at metafoo.co.uk <mailto:richard at metafoo.co.uk>> wrote:
>>
>> On 2 January 2018 at 19:02, John McCall via cfe-commits <cfe-commits at lists.llvm.org <mailto:cfe-commits at lists.llvm.org>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Jan 2, 2018, at 9:15 PM, Akira Hatanaka <ahatanaka at apple.com <mailto:ahatanaka at apple.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Jan 2, 2018, at 4:56 PM, Richard Smith via cfe-commits <cfe-commits at lists.llvm.org <mailto:cfe-commits at lists.llvm.org>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 2 January 2018 at 15:33, John McCall via cfe-commits <cfe-commits at lists.llvm.org <mailto:cfe-commits at lists.llvm.org>> wrote:
>>>> Hey, Richard et al. Akira and I were talking about the right ABI rule for deciding can-pass-in-registers-ness for structs in the presence of trivial_abi, and I think I like Akira's approach but wanted to get your input.
>>>>
>>>> The current definition in Itanium is:
>>>>
>>>> non-trivial for the purposes of calls <>
>>>> <>
>>>> A type is considered non-trivial for the purposes of calls if:
>>>>
>>>> it has a non-trivial copy constructor, move constructor, or destructor, or
>>>> <>
>>>> I'm assuming we're implicitly excluding deleted functions here. (I'd prefer to make that explicit; this has been the source of a number of ABI mismatches.)
>>>> all of its copy and move constructors are deleted.
>>>> <>
>>>>
>>>> I'd suggest modifying this to:
>>>>
>>>> A type is considered non-trivial for the purposes of calls if:
>>>> - if has a copy constructor, move constructor, or destructor which is non-trivial for the purposes of calls, or
>>>> - all of its copy and move constructors are deleted and it does not have the trivial_abi attribute.
>>>>
>>>> A copy/move constructor is considered trivial for the purposes of calls if:
>>>> - it is user-provided and
>>>> - the class has the trivial_abi attribute and
>>>> - a defaulted definition of the constructor would be trivial for the purposes of calls; or
>>>>
>>>> We'd need to say what happens if the function in question cannot validly be defaulted for any of the reasons in [dcl.fct.def.default]. Do we try to infer whether it's a copy or move constructor, and use the rules for a defaulted copy or move constructor? Or do we just say that's never trivial for the purposes of calls? Or something else? Eg:
>>>>
>>>> struct [[clang::trivial_abi]] A {
>>>> A(A && = make());
>>>> };
>>>>
>>>> Here, A::A(A&&) cannot validly be defaulted. Is A trivial for the purpose of calls? Likewise:
>>>>
>>>> struct [[clang::trivial_abi]] B {
>>>> B(...);
>>>> };
>>>> struct C {
>>>> volatile B b;
>>>> };
>>>>
>>>> Here, C's copy constructor calls B::B(...). Is C trivial for the purpose of calls? (OK, Clang crashes on that example today. But still...)
>>>>
>>>> I'd be uncomfortable making the rules in [dcl.fct.def.default] part of the ABI; they seem to be changing relatively frequently. Perhaps we could say "if the function is a copy constructor ([class.copy.ctor]/1), then consider what an implicitly-declared defaulted copy constructor would do; if it's a move constructor ([class.copy.ctor]/2), then consider what an implicitly-declared defaulted move constructor would do; otherwise, it's not trivial for the purpose of calls". That'd mean A is trivial for the purpose of calls and C is not, which I think is probably the right answer.
>>>>
>>>> - it is not user-provided and
>>>> - the class has no virtual functions and no virtual base classes, and
>>>> - the constructor used to copy/move each direct base class subobject is trivial for the purposes of calls, and
>>>> - for each non-static data member that is of class type (or array thereof), the constructor selected to copy/move that member is trivial for the purposes of calls.
>>>>
>>>> A destructor is considered trivial for the purposes of calls if:
>>>> - it is not user-provided or the class has the trivial_abi attribute, and
>>>> - the destructor is not virtual, and
>>>> - all of the direct base classes of its class have destructors that are trivial for the purposes of calls, and
>>>> - for all of the non-static data members of its class that are of class type (or array thereof), each such class is trivial for the purposes of calls.
>>>>
>>>> These definitions are intended to follow [class.copy.ctor]p11 and [class.dtor]p6 except for the special rules applicable to trivial_abi classes.
>>>>
>>>> If I could rephrase: a *tor is considered trivial for for the purposes of calls if it is either defaulted or the class has the trivial_abi attribute, and the defaulted definition would satisfy the language rule for being trivial but with the word "trivial" replaced by "trivial for the purposes of calls". So only effect of the trivial_abi attribute is to "undo" the non-triviality implied by a user-provided *tor when computing triviality for the purpose of calls.
>>>>
>>>> I think that's a reasonable rule, if we have a satisfactory notion of "defaulted definition".
>>>>
>>>> I'm not sure about the "defaulted definition" rule for copy/move constructors in trivial_abi classes. The intent is to allow class temploids with trivial_abi that are instantiated to contain non-trivial classes to just silently become non-trivial. I was thinking at first that it would be nice to have a general rule that trivial_abi classes only contain trivial_abi subobjects, but unfortunately that's not consistent with the standard triviality rule in some silly corner cases: a trivially-copyable class can have a non-trivially-copyable subobject if it happens to copy that subobject with a trivial copy constructor. I couldn't think of a better way of capturing this than the "defaulted definition" rule. I considered using the actual initializers used by the constructor, but that would introduce a lot of new complexity: suddenly we'd be asking about triviality for an arbitrary constructor, and copy/move elision make the question somewhat ambiguous anyway.
>>>>
>>>> Per the above examples, I don't think you can escape asking about triviality for an arbitrary constructor if you take this path.
>>>>
>>>> Another option, similar to your general rule, would be to say that a type is considered trivial for the purpose of calls if either: (1) it is trivial for the purpose of calls under the current Itanium ABI rule, or (2) it has the trivial_abi attribute and all members and base classes have types that are trivial for the purpose of calls. That would sidestep the "defaulted definition" complexity entirely, and while it differs from the way that the language computes triviality normally, it doesn't seem fundamentally unreasonable: when we're thinking about triviality for the purpose of calls, there's notionally a call to the trivial copy/move ctor being elided, not a call to an arbitrary ctor selected by overload resolution, and we'd just be pushing that effect from the class itself to its subobjects with this attribute.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It sounds like a class containing a member that has a type annotated with “trivial_abi” would not necessarily be considered trivial for the purpose of calls according to rule (2)? For example, S1 would not be trivial for the purpose of calls because it isn’t annotated with “trivial_abi” in the code below:
>>>
>>> struct [[clang::trivial_abi]] S0 {
>>> // user-provided special functions declared here.
>>> };
>>>
>>> struct S1 {
>>> S0 f0;
>>> };
>>>
>>> I thought we wanted containing classes (S1 in this case) to be trivial for the purpose of calls too?
>>
>> I would like that, yeah.
>>
>> OK, I think that's fair. Then we probably need the more complex rule. Which I think means we're at something equivalent to:
>>
>> A type is considered non-trivial for the purposes of calls if:
>> - if has a copy constructor, move constructor, or destructor that is not deleted and is non-trivial for the purposes of calls, or
>> - all of its copy and move constructors are deleted and it does not have the trivial_abi attribute.
>
> Hold on... this final "and it does not have the trivial_abi attribute" looks wrong to me; it seems to break the "do what I mean"ness of the attribute. Consider:
>
> template<typename T, typename U> struct [[clang::trivial_abi]] pair { ... };
>
> std::pair<ContainsPointerToSelf, int> f(); // returned indirect
> std::pair<ContainsPointerToSelf, NonCopyable> g(); // returned in registers because all copy/move ctors deleted
>
> That seems like a bug. Can we just strike that addition, or does one of your intended use cases need it?
It was a last-minute addition that seemed like a good idea, but I was just thinking about all the copy/move ctors being explicitly deleted on the class, not any of the inheritance cases. I agree with striking it.
The only use cases we really have in mind are
- simple resource-owning classes like smart pointers, which would adopt the attribute, and
- classes with defaulted copy/destruction semantics, which should propagate triviality if possible.
I just think we need to be prepared to make the rule more general than that.
>> A copy/move constructor is considered trivial for the purposes of calls if:
>> - it is user-provided and
>> - the class has the trivial_abi attribute and
>> - a defaulted definition of a constructor with the signature of the implicit copy/move constructor for the class would be trivial for the purposes of calls; or
>
> One other concern here: what if the defaulted definition would be deleted? I think in that case the constructor we're considering should also be treated as if it were deleted. And that applies recursively: if the implicit copy/move constructor would itself have been deleted, we want to treat the original member of the type we're checking as being deleted. And likewise, if a defaulted copy/move constructor invokes a copy/move constructor of a trivial_abi class, and a defaulted copy/move constructor for that class would have been deleted, we want to act as if the original defaulted copy/move constructor was deleted. That seems awkward to specify in the fashion we've been using until now, since the result of a triviality calculation is now "deleted", "non-trivial", or "trivial", and deletedness can change in either direction as a result of the attribute.
Ugh. I feel like this problem is mostly a further indictment of the idea of basing this on what a defaulted definition would look like.
We could just base it on the overall trivial-for-calls-ness of the subobject types. It's a very different rule from the standard triviality rule, but it's okay to differ here because this *only* affects special members of classes with the attribute.
>
> Here's a terse summary of the rule I'm considering:
>
> """
> For the determination of triviality for the purposes of calls, a modified form of the program is considered. In this modified form, each copy or move constructor or destructor of a class with the trivial_abi attribute is replaced by a defaulted copy or move constructor or destructor (with the signature of an implicit such declaration), and calls to the former are transformed into calls to the latter within the implicit definitions of defaulted special member functions. A function is deleted for the purposes of calls in the original program if the corresponding function is deleted in the modified program, and is otherwise trivial for the purposes of calls in the original program if the corresponding function is trivial in the modified program.
>
> A type is considered non-trivial for the purposes of calls if:
> - if has a copy constructor, move constructor, or destructor that is non-deleted and non-trivial for the purposes of calls, or
> - all of its copy and move constructors are deleted for purposes of calls.
> """
Yikes. I feel like I would have no ability to explain this rule to a user.
>> - it is not user-provided and
>> - the class has no virtual functions and no virtual base classes, and
>> - the constructor used to copy/move each direct base class subobject is trivial for the purposes of calls, and
>> - for each non-static data member that is of class type (or array thereof), the constructor selected to copy/move that member is trivial for the purposes of calls.
>> A constructor that is neither a copy constructor nor a move constructor is considered non-trivial for the purposes of calls.
>
> This clause is there to handle constructors that are copy/move constructors only because of defaulted arguments? I wonder if this is necessary; I think the allocator-like use cases would prefer that we just ignore the non-initial arguments, wouldn't they?
>
> This doesn't affect the default argument case: if a constructor has a first parameter of type T / cv T& / cv T&&, and all further parameters (if any) have default arguments, it is still a copy or move constructor. Rather, we reach this clause in any case where "the constructor used/selected to copy/move [...]" has some other first parameter type or is X::X(...); such a constructor is only selected when there is no viable copy/move constructor.
Oh, which can happen even for non-user-provided constructors because it's just the ordinary overload rules, of course.
>> A destructor is considered trivial for the purposes of calls if:
>> - it is not user-provided or the class has the trivial_abi attribute, and
>> - the destructor is not virtual, and
>> - all of the direct base classes of its class have destructors that are trivial for the purposes of calls, and
>> - for all of the non-static data members of its class that are of class type (or array thereof), each such class is trivial for the purposes of calls.
>>
>> Bolded phrases are changed from John's initial email.
>
> Thank you for the revision; this is much improved.
>
> I'm concerned about the level of complexity we've discovered to be necessary here, and in particular the necessity of having a side-notion of "trivial for the purpose of calls" for all copy/move ctors and dtors, even in classes that do not directly use the trivial_abi attribute. But I suppose that's fundamental if we want to pass struct S1 (above) directly. I'd like a simpler rule, but I'm not convinced there is one.
Well, I think the adjustment I suggest above would cap the complexity a bit; at least we would need these speculative investigation into defaulted definitions that don't actually exist. But we'd still need to track the new kind of triviality for each ctor/dtor.
John.
>
> John.
>
>>
>> John.
>>
>>>
>>>> I'm also not sure about the right rules about virtual methods. Should we allow polymorphic classes to be made trivial by application of the attribute?
>>>>
>>>> I think that it probably doesn't make much sense to pass dynamic classes indirectly unless we can avoid passing the vptr; otherwise I'd expect we'd use too many registers for it to be worthwhile. Perhaps as a compromise, we could make the attribute ill-formed if used on a class definition that introduces any virtual bases or explicitly declares any member functions as 'virtual'. That gives us the room to make this decision later if we find we want to.
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> cfe-commits mailing list
>>>> cfe-commits at lists.llvm.org <mailto:cfe-commits at lists.llvm.org>
>>>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits <http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> cfe-commits mailing list
>> cfe-commits at lists.llvm.org <mailto:cfe-commits at lists.llvm.org>
>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits <http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits>
>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cfe-commits mailing list
> cfe-commits at lists.llvm.org <mailto:cfe-commits at lists.llvm.org>
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits <http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-commits/attachments/20180103/5c3555bd/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the cfe-commits
mailing list