[llvm-dev] [RFC] ASM Goto With Output Constraints

[Bill Wendling via llvm-dev]

Now that ASM goto support has landed, Nick Desaulniers and I wrote up a
document describing how to expand clang's implementation of ASM goto to
support output constraints. The work *should* be straight-forward, but as
always will need to be verified to work. Below is a copy of our whitepaper.
Please take a look and offer any comments you have.

Share and enjoy!
-bw
Overview

Support for asm goto <https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Extended-Asm.html>
with output constraints is a feature that the Linux community is interested
in having. Adding this new feature should give Clang a higher profile in
the Linux community:


   -

   It demonstrates the Clang community's commitment to supporting Linux.
   -

   Developers are likely to adopt it on their own, which means they will
   need to use Clang in some fashion, either as a complete replacement for or
   in addition to GCC.

Current state

Clang's implementation of asm goto converts this code:

int vogon(unsigned a, unsigned b) {
  asm goto("poetry %0, %1" : : "r"(a), "r"(b) : : error);
  return a + b;

error:
  return -1;
}

into the following LLVM IR:

define i32 @vogon(i32 %a, i32 %b) {
entry:
  callbr void asm sideeffect "poetry $0, $1", "r,r,X"
      (i32 %a, i32 %b, i8* blockaddress(@vogon, %return))
          to label %asm.fallthrough [label %return]

asm.fallthrough:
  %add = add i32 %b, %a
  br label %return

return:
  %retval.0 = phi i32 [ %add, %asm.fallthrough ], [ -1, %entry ]
  ret i32 %retval.0
}

Our proposal won't change LLVM's current behavior–i.e. a callbr without a
return value will act in the same way as the current implementation.
Proposal

GCC restricts asm goto from having output constraints due to limitations in
its internal representation–i.e. GCC's control transfer instructions cannot
have outputs. For example:

int vogon(int a, int b) {
  asm goto("poetry %0, %1" : "=r"(a), "=r"(b) : : : error);
  return a + b;

error:
  return -1;
}

currently fails to compile in GCC with the following error:

<source>: In function 'vogon':
<source>:2:29: error: expected ':' before string constant
  2 |   asm goto("poetry %0, %1" : "=r"(a), "=r"(b) : : : error);
    |                         ^~~~~
    |                         :



ToT Clang matches GCC's behavior:

<source>:2:30: error: 'asm goto' cannot have output constraints
  asm goto("poetry %0, %1" : "=r"(a), "=r"(b) : : : error);

However, LLVM doesn't restrict control transfer instructions from having
outputs (e.g. the invoke instruction
<https://llvm.org/docs/LangRef.html#invoke-instruction>). We propose
changing LLVM's callbr instruction
<https://llvm.org/docs/LangRef.html#callbr-instruction> to allow return
values, similar to how LLVM's implementation of inline assembly (via the
call instruction <https://llvm.org/docs/LangRef.html#call-instruction>)
allows return values. Since there can potentially be zero to many output
constraints, callbr would now return an aggregate which contains an element
for each output constraint.  These values would then be extracted via
extractvalue. With our proposal, the above C example will be converted to
LLVM IR like this:

define i32 @vogon(i32 %a, i32 %b) {
entry:
  %0 = callbr { i32, i32 } asm sideeffect "poetry $0, $1", "=r,=r,X"
      (i8* blockaddress(@vogon, %error))
          to label %asm.fallthrough [label %error]


asm.fallthrough:
  %asmresult.a = extractvalue { i32, i32 } %0, 0
  %asmresult.b = extractvalue { i32, i32 } %0, 1
  %result = add i32 %asmresult.a, %asmresult.b
  ret i32 %result

error:
  ret i32 -1
}

Note that unlike the invoke instruction, callbr's return values are assumed
valid on all branches. The assumption is that the programmer knows what
their inline assembly is doing and where its output constraints are valid.
If the value isn't valid on a particular branch but is used there anyway,
then the result is a poison value. (Also, if a callbr's return values
affect a branch, it will be handled similarly to the invoke instruction's
implementation.) Here's an example of how this would work:

int vogon(int a, int b) {
  asm goto("poetry %0, %1" : "=r"(a), "=r"(b) : : : error);
  if (a == 42)
    return 42 * b;
  return a + b;

error:
  return b - 42;
}

generates the following LLVM IR:

define i32 @vogon(i32 %a, i32 %b) {
entry:
  %0 = callbr { i32, i32 } asm sideeffect "poetry $0, $1", "=r,=r,X"
      (i8* blockaddress(@vogon, %error))
          to label %asm.fallthrough [label %error]

asm.fallthrough:
  %asmresult.a = extractvalue { i32, i32 } %0, 0
  %tobool = icmp eq i32 %asmresult.a, 42
  br i1 %tobool, label %if.true, label %if.false

if.true:
  %asmresult.b = extractvalue { i32, i32 } %0, 1
  %mul = mul i32 42, %asmresult.b
  ret i32 %mul

if.false:
  %asmresult.a.1 = extractvalue { i32, i32 } %0, 0
  %asmresult.b.1 = extractvalue { i32, i32 } %0, 1
  %result = add i32 %asmresult.a.1, %asmresult.b.1
  ret i32 %result

error:
  %asmresult.b.error = extractvalue { i32, i32 } %0, 1
  %error.result = sub i32 %asmresult.b.error, 42
  ret i32 %error.result
}
Implementation

Because LLVM's invoke instruction is a terminating instruction that may
have return values, we can use it as a template for callbr's changes. The
new functionality lies mostly in modifying Clang's front-end. In
particular, we need to do the following:


   -

   Remove all error checks restricting asm goto from returning values, and
   -

   Generate the extractvalue instructions on callbr's branches.


LLVM's middle- and back-ends need to be audited to ensure there are no
restrictions on callbr returning a value. We expect all passes to Just
Work™ without modifications, but of course will be verified.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20190627/fb832e7f/attachment-0001.html>