[LLVMdev] [RFC] Storing default function attributes on the module
Jim Grosbach
grosbach at apple.com
Mon Mar 9 18:28:18 PDT 2015
> On Mar 5, 2015, at 1:01 PM, Duncan P. N. Exon Smith <dexonsmith at apple.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> On 2015 Feb 26, at 11:34, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 3:18 PM Sean Silva <chisophugis at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 2:53 PM, Duncan P. N. Exon Smith <dexonsmith at apple.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2015-Feb-24, at 13:25, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Duncan,
>>>
>>> Been thinking about this a bit and a few comments/questions. I may have misunderstood some things in your mail though so please feel free to explain at me :)
>>>
>>>
>>> Changing `clang` to store target defaults on the module will allow us to
>>> continue to override them when running `llc`. The right precedence
>>> would be:
>>>
>>> 1. Explicit attributes set on the function.
>>> 2. `llc` command-line options.
>>> 3. Default function attributes stored on the module.
>>>
>>> (Outside of `llc`, skip step 2.)
>>>
>>> In `lib/Linker` (i.e., `llvm-lto`, `llvm-link`, `libLTO.dylib`),
>>> defaults should be pushed down as explicit function attributes.
>>>
>>> I think there are a few options/backend communications that aren't/haven't gone this way yet that are probably worth considering:
>>>
>>> MCTargetOptions/TargetOptions: Basically a grab bag of functionality, some of which is duplicated via attributes and some that's not. I think at least some of these should be replaced by module flags, e.g. ABI.
>>>
>>> Random backend flags: Anything for debugging.
>>>
>>> I'm thinking things that are either set as Init(true/false) and affect things at a global level and not just the function level.
>>
>> (I think my lib/Linker comment was unclear. See below.)
>>
>> Not at all trying to say that *everything* should be a function
>> attribute; global-level stuff should absolutely be module flags.
>>
>> I'm just talking about infrastructure for the things that *are*
>> function-level.
>>
>>>
>>> They look like this in assembly:
>>>
>>> attributes default = { "no-frame-pointer-elim"="false" }
>>>
>>>
>>> So, how do you see module merging and defaults working? (Yes, there were testcases, but let's go with prose here. I found the testcases a bit hard to reason.)
>>
>> This is where my lib/Linker comment applies:
>>
>>>> In `lib/Linker` (i.e., `llvm-lto`, `llvm-link`, `libLTO.dylib`),
>>>> defaults should be pushed down as explicit function attributes.
>>
>> ^ This is how I see module merging and defaults working: push the
>> defaults down to explicit function attributes. So there wouldn't
>> be any default function attributes in the output of `llvm-link`.
>> This means that `llc` will still have trouble overriding attributes
>> in the output of merged modules -- but at least it can handle the
>> output of `clang` without trouble. In the future we could try to
>> be more intelligent about merged modules, and keep common options
>> in the default set.
>>
>>>
>>> Limitations
>>> ===========
>>>
>>> There are a few limitations with this approach (at least, with my
>>> reference implementation).
>>>
>>> - `Function::getAttributes()` only reflects the explicitly specified
>>> attributes, skipping those set as module defaults.
>>>
>>> Ick. Pretty severe limitation? I.e. how would it work to test general attributes on a function during code gen?
>>
>> As long as everyone calls `Function::hasFnAttribute()`, there's no
>> problem. This proposal basically turns it into a bug to access
>> them directly; you need to go through `Function::hasFnAttribute()`
>> to get the right answer. (Not sure if there's a better way?)
>>
>>>
>>> - If an enum attribute is set as a default, there's no way for a
>>> function-attribute to override it. In practice, we could avoid the
>>> feature for enum attributes.
>>>
>>> Hrm. This seems like a pretty severe limitation? Anything come to mind in practice.
>>
>> In the `Attribute` format, mutually exclusive attributes aren't
>> related at all (they're not inherently mutually exclusive). To
>> make them overridable, we'd need a completely new design for
>> enum attributes.
>>
>> As a result, this proposal only improves `llc` for string-based
>> attributes. I don't see that as a problem... the string-based
>> attributes are more flexible anyway. Maybe `Module` should only
>> allow `setDefaultFnAttribute()` for string attributes though?
>>
>> (Some more context on why enum attributes can't really be
>> overridden. This isn't just a problem for enum attributes that
>> are mutually exclusive. Consider:
>>
>> attributes defaults = { noreturn }
>>
>> Besides being somewhat insane, there's no `return` attribute,
>> so you can't really override it. I suppose one idea would be to
>> explicitly mark a function `~noreturn` or something:
>>
>> define void @foo() ~noreturn { ; Ignore module default noreturn.
>>
>> Not sure if this direction is a good one though.)
>>
>>>
>>> - `CallSite` instructions store function-level attributes, but don't
>>> forward to the module-level defaults. There are places (like the
>>> calls to `EmitUnaryFloatFnCall()` in `-simplify-libcalls`) where we
>>> use the callee function attributes to set the call site attributes.
>>> In practice, we could avoid the feature for attributes that are
>>> meaningful for call sites.
>>>
>>> Sure.
>>>
>>> - Intrinsics' attributes are independent of `CodeGenOptions`, and set
>>> via `Instrinsic::getAttributes()`. With this change they'd inherit
>>> the default attributes like other functions. Is this a problem?
>>> If so, we can add a flag on `Function` that inhibits forwarding to
>>> the defaults.
>>>
>>>
>>> Seems reasonable.
>>>
>>> Thoughts? Other ideas for solving the `llc` problem?
>>>
>>>
>>> I think this is a good start, I think I'd like to worry about some of the other issues in advance before we start incrementally changing things though. (Also, I really have no other ideas :)
>>>
>>
>>
>> So Akira had an idea at the end of last week that I don't
>> think made it onto the list, and it's worth considering as an
>> alternative:
>>
>> Add a bit to attributes indicating whether or not they're
>> overridable (i.e., they're overridable if they're target
>> defaults; they're not overridable if they've been explicitly
>> specified somehow).
>>
>> Here's some straw-man syntax:
>>
>> attributes #0 = { noreturn ssp? "att1"="1" "att2"="2"? }
>>
>> Where:
>>
>> - `noreturn` and `"att1"="1"` are required.
>> - `ssp` and `"att2"="2"` can be overridden (e.g., by `llc`).
>>
>> (Alternately, but equivalently:
>>
>> attributes #0 = { noreturn! ssp "att1"="1"! "att2"="2" }
>>
>> I like this syntax better, but it would cause more churn, and
>> `!` is so far reserved for metadata.)
>>
>> Whatever the syntax, the idea is: `llc` resets/deletes
>> attributes on every function to match what's specified on the
>> command-line. In the above example, functions with attribute
>> set #0 could have `ssp` and `"att2"` overridden via the `llc`
>> command-line, but not `noreturn` and `"att1"`.
>>
>> To compare it to my proposal:
>>
>> - Storing a default attribute set (my proposal) makes it
>> easier to look at and set the defaults. Applying `llc`
>> command-line options is easy, too -- just override the
>> default attribute set on the module -- although it doesn't
>> really work on the output of `lib/Linker`.
>> - Storing a bit on each attribute (Akira's proposal) handles
>> more cases. Nothing needs to be done in `lib/Linker`
>> (`llc` is able to override the output of `llvm-link`),
>> and it doesn't have a disconnect between `hasFnAttribute()`
>> and `getAttributes().hasAttribute(FunctionIndex)`.
>>
>> Awkwardly, having written that out, I'm kind of leaning toward
>> it myself right now (maybe I'm fickle?) -- it seems to have
>> fewer limitations. The main thing I prefer about my proposal
>> is that it's easier to change the default attributes when
>> modifying an assembly file by hand, but I suppose we could
>> write a tool for that?
>>
>> I think the tool approach deserves a bit of attention for the original usecase of trying different target attributes to see if they tickle a bug. Would it be feasible to have a purpose-built tool `llvm-attr-mutate` (bikeshed) so you can do `cat foo.bc | llvm-attr-mutate .... | llc`. The arguments to llvm-attr-mutate could then be made as convenient/powerful as needed for this debugging task.
>>
>>
>> FWIW the tool approach is what we were coming up with in the first place :)
>>
>> Which would obviate the need for handling the command line options at all of course.
>>
>
> I've done some more thinking about this.
>
> 1. The module-level default attribute approach (what I started this
> thread with) cleans up assembly files and provides a clean hook for
> mutating the "defaults" from `llc`. However, it doesn't cleanly fit
> into the current semantic model for attributes, so you get weird
> inconsistencies depending on how you query them.
> 2. Flipping a bit to indicate whether something was the "default"
> solves the various technical problems. However, overriding the
> attributes requires walking all of the IR to rewrite them, and the
> assembly syntax readability will get worse, not better.
> 3. Using a separate tool allows you to override the attributes
> arbitrarily, but doesn't distinguish between "default" and explicit
> attributes. Furthermore, if the primary use for the tool is:
>
> llvm-attr-mutate -o - t.bc -attr target-cpu=proc123 | llc
>
> then I'm not sure we're gaining anything. In particular, having
> `llc` mutate the IR when you say:
>
> llc <t.bc -target-cpu=proc123
>
> is a far cleaner interface. Not to say that a tool to mutate
> attributes isn't a great idea -- I think it might be -- just that
> it's not a great solution for *this* problem.
> 4. Having `llc` mutate the IR itself -- the obvious solution, which
> Akira posted a patch for a few months ago -- does the job just as
> well as `llvm-attr-mutate` but with a much cleaner interface. It
> fails to distinguish between target defaults and explicit
> attributes, but when combined with `llvm-extract`, it gives you full
> control over the codegen options for each function.
>
> Remind me again why we don't just do #4? It seems like the simplest way
> to keep `llc` viable in the short term.
llc should be able to override the default values for options without mutating anything that’s explicitly specified at a function (or module) level.
For example, if I have a .ll file with specialized functions with different CPUs specified, I want to be able to recompile that file with -mcpu= on the llc command line in such a way that those functions don’t get changed, but any functions that don’t have an explicit CPU on them do. Consider trying to test something like function multi versioning.
-Jim
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20150309/f289a489/attachment.html>
More information about the llvm-dev
mailing list