[cfe-dev] Implementing OpenMP function variants

John McCall via cfe-dev cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
Wed Dec 18 11:55:41 PST 2019

On 18 Dec 2019, at 14:25, Doerfert, Johannes wrote:
> On 12/18, John McCall wrote:
>> On 18 Dec 2019, at 11:16, Doerfert, Johannes wrote:
>>> On 12/18, John McCall wrote:
>>>> On 13 Dec 2019, at 10:08, Finkel, Hal J. wrote:
>>>>> Richard, John, et al.,
>>>>> Let me top-post here quickly to add that this question comes
>>>>> directly
>>>>> from a disagreement about the application of Clang's design
>>>>> principle of
>>>>> keeping the AST faithful to the source code (and I suspect that
>>>>> such a
>>>>> question may be of wider interest to the community).
>>>>> Johannes has summarized the OpenMP language semantics below (thanks,
>>>>> Johannes!).
>>>>> The relevant review thread is here: https://reviews.llvm.org/D71241
>>>>> Alexey's position is that, because the source code contains what
>>>>> appears
>>>>> to be a call to the base() function, the AST should always
>>>>> reflect that
>>>>> fact by having getCallee() return a reference to base(), and we
>>>>> should
>>>>> lower the call to the selected variant using logic in CodeGen. Some
>>>>> other member function should be used by AST-level tools to
>>>>> retrieve the
>>>>> actually-called variant. This has the benefit that the primary AST
>>>>> representation is independent of the compilation target and other
>>>>> relevant OpenMP context.
>>>>> My position is that, like other cases where we perform overload
>>>>> resolution and specializaton selection (including host/device
>>>>> overloads
>>>>> in CUDA), we should resolve the variant selected in Sema, and
>>>>> getCallee() should return a reference to the function that will
>>>>> actually
>>>>> be called (even if that function has a different name from the
>>>>> name used
>>>>> syntactically to form the call expression). This will ensure that
>>>>> static-analysis tools see the correct call-site <-> callee
>>>>> relationship.
>>>>> We should, I think, also keep a reference to the original OpenMP
>>>>> base
>>>>> function in the AST, but some other member function should be
>>>>> used to
>>>>> retrieve it.
>>>>> We say that we keep Clang's AST faithful to the source code, but
>>>>> how to
>>>>> best apply that philosophy in this case is now under debate.
>>>> Is it always immediately decidable when parsing a reference to a
>>>> function
>>>> which variant should be used, or is it sometimes dynamic or at least
>>>> delayed?
>>> For now, which means OpenMP 5.0 and TR8, it is conceptually immediately
>>> decidable. It only depends on compilation parameters, e.g., the target
>>> triple, and the lexical context.
>>>> How is this expected to interact with C++ overloading?  Can you
>>>> independently declare variants of each overload?
>>> While the standard is not specific on this, I don't see why not.
>>> I tried to summarize what the standard says yesterday [0]:
>>> OpenMP basically says, if you have a call to a (base)function* that has
>>> variants with contexts that match at the call site, call the variant
>>> with the highest score. The variants are specified by a variant-func-id,
>>> which is a base language identifier or C++ template-id. For C++, the
>>> variant declaration is identified by *performing the base language
>>> lookup rules on the variant-func-id with arguments that correspond to
>>> the base function argument types*.
>>> * However you figured out that the base function is the one called in
>>>   the first place.
>>> [0] https://reviews.llvm.org/D71241#1788003
>>>> How does this interact with nested scopes?  If all variants are
>>>> unacceptable
>>>> for the use context, is it like the declaration just doesn’t exist,
>>>> and so
>>>> lookup continues to outer scopes?  Or is this impossible because
>>>> there
>>>> always has to be a non-variant declaration in the current scope?
>>> The latter. As mentioned above, you first find the "normal" call target
>>> and then apply the variant logic from there.
>>>> My immediate intuition is that, assuming the semantics are always
>>>> static and
>>>> that there’s always a non-variant function, this should be handled
>>>> as a sort
>>>> of second level of overload resolution.  The variant declarations
>>>> should be
>>>> considered more-or-less independent functions; they are not
>>>> redeclarations
>>>> of the original.  5.1-type variants should be hidden from lookup, so
>>>> that
>>>> only the original function is found.  When we resolve a use of a
>>>> declaration
>>>> with variants we then pick the appropriate variant and treat the
>>>> declaration
>>>> as if it was using that originally.  The fact that we resolved it
>>>> via a
>>>> variant should be recorded in the FoundDecl, which would now have an
>>>> additional possible state: we could have looked through a using
>>>> declaration,
>>>> and we could have resolved a variant.  This shouldn’t be a problem
>>>> for
>>>> FoundDecl.
>>> I think your assumptions are met.
>>> Is there a good reason to make 5.1-type variants different from
>>> multi-versions (as we have them)? They do not depend on the lexical call
>>> context but only on the compilation parameters.
>> Are multi-versions yet another feature?  Do they interact with this one?
> In 5.1, `begin/end declare variant` multi-version a function basically
> the same way as `__attribute__((target(...)))` does. The condition can
> be more than only a target though. (I mispoke earlier, it can include
> call site context information). So we have multiple versions of a
> function, let's say "sin", and depending on the compilation target,
> e.g., are we compiling for nvptx or not, ans call site context, e.g.,
> are we syntacitally inside a parallel region, we pick on of them. The
> prototype for this reuses almost all of the multi-version code that
> enables the target attribute as it seemed to be the natural fit.

I see.  And that’s still totally statically selected at use time, right?


More information about the cfe-dev mailing list