[llvm-dev] RFC: Making a common successor/predecessor interface

Thu Mar 12 11:35:56 PDT 2020

Yup, that solves my problem :-). Thanks a lot for the taking the time to
understand and address the underlying issue!

I have a couple of NFC patches sent out that I think are still worth
checking-in (D75952 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D75952>, D75962
<https://reviews.llvm.org/D75962>), but the others I'll abandon.

Best,
Alina

On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 10:52 AM David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote:

> Think we got this all figured out with: https://reviews.llvm.org/D76034 -
> but if there's more issues here (or just general C++-y design questions,
> etc) more than happy to discuss them here/other threads/whenever :)
>
> On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 4:42 PM Alina Sbirlea <alina.sbirlea at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 2:30 PM David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 8:31 AM Alina Sbirlea <alina.sbirlea at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Dave,
>>>>
>>>> It may be possible to do this with the current API, but what I was
>>>> looking for is a common API for existing block types. For example there is
>>>> no succ_begin for Machine BasicBlock.
>>>>
>>>
>>>> I'm looking to make the CFGSuccessors and CFGPredecessors classes in
>>>> CFGDiff.h templated, and this needs a common API for all types
>>>> instantiations.
>>>>
>>>> Does this clarify your question or did I misunderstand your suggestion?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Possibly some misunderstanding - sounds like Nicolai had the same
>>> suggestion phrased more clearly.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Nicolai,
>>>>
>>>> Yes, I considered declaring the "global" succ_begin for the other block
>>>> types, but it seems like a more complex change (probably to declare the
>>>> type as Dave described, and these need adding for 3 more types vs 2 now)
>>>> and these wouldn't be used anywhere else.
>>>>
>>>
>>> What do you mean by "adding 3 more types vs 2 now" - where the iterator
>>> types are written is pretty separate from this API change (even if the
>>> iterator types remain non-members - the succ_begin non-member -> member
>>> functions with a member type could be achieved by using a member typedef
>>> rather than a member /type/ )
>>>
>>
>> I meant adding the global APIs for
>> MachineBasicBlock, VPBlockBase, clang::CFGBlock (3), vs adding member APIs
>> in BasicBlock and VPBlockBase (2).
>> This is only because the use case I am looking at involves the
>> DominatorTree and there are no instantiations around other types (like you
>> mentioned: Interval).
>> Looking closer at the comments for Interval, I see that the global APIs
>> were added to mirror the BasicBlock ones, and they're essentially wrappers
>> over iterators expressed as class members.
>>
>>
>>> So currently we have:
>>>
>>> class Instruction;
>>> class BasicBlock;
>>> class Interval;
>>>
>>> succ_begin(Instruction*)
>>> succ_begin(BasicBlock*)
>>> succ_begin(Interval*)
>>> (& some kind of Region thing in RegionIterator.h)
>>>
>>> and you'd like to generalize this over more types, MachineBasicBlocks,
>>> VPBlockBase and clang::CFGBlock?
>>>
>>> So the suggestion would be to add:
>>>
>>> succ_begin(MachineBasicBlock*)
>>> succ_begin(VPBlockBase*)
>>> succ_begin(CFGBlock*)
>>>
>>> what would be the negative side of adding that, rather than porting the
>>> extra 3 to member functions?
>>>
>>
>> I don't think there is any negative, tbh. I simply found it clearer to
>> reason about these as class member methods, and, looking at the existing
>> cases, the "global" API approach looked to me to be the outlier.
>> I also found somewhat confusing that, for Instructions, there are defined
>> successor iterators via the global APIs but not predecessors, and these are
>> in a separate file (CFG.h) so it's not as obvious this is the case. If
>> these were class iterators, this would stand out.
>>
>> Thinking more, I think your suggestion to add the global ones is easier
>> to implement as as quick solution:
>> succ_begin(MachineBasicBlock*)
>> succ_begin(VPBlockBase*)
>> succ_begin(CFGBlock*)
>> just like you suggested, as these are just wrappers over the class member
>> methods (like those defined for Interval).
>> If folks feel this is a cleaner/better approach, I'm happy to work
>> towards that.
>>
>> The member methods still seem cleaner to me, but I realize I'll have to
>> sign up for changing the whole code-base to use that if going that route
>> :-).
>> Again, as long as the end result is consistent, I'm flexible to go either
>> way.
>>
>> Best,
>> Alina
>>
>>
>>>
>>>> AFAICT, there is no issue with replacing the current "global" iterators
>>>> with class specific ones, they are already used as such. But perhaps I
>>>> don't have the full picture.
>>>>  In the first patch I put up, the iterators added inside BasicBlock can
>>>> co-exist with the global ones, so the switch can be done incrementally.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Alina
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Mar 9, 2020, 4:16 PM David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Mar 9, 2020 at 3:57 PM Alina Sbirlea via llvm-dev <
>>>>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As part of an ongoing work to extend the GraphDiff (this models a CFG
>>>>>> view), I came across the need to have a common interface for accessing
>>>>>> successors/predecessors in various IR units, such that a type such as
>>>>>> `typename NodeT::succ_iterator` could be used in templated code.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I /think/ this can be achieved with the existing API by using
>>>>> "decltype(succ_begin(std::declval<NodeT>()))" instead of the typename
>>>>> you've got as an example (it looks like succ_begin is the extension point -
>>>>> but the problem you're having is naming its return type? decltype would be
>>>>> one option) - you could make a trait wrapper around that or the like if you
>>>>> need this type name in a bunch of disparate places (where they can't share
>>>>> a typedef).
>>>>>
>>>>> Would that suffice? are there other aspects of your use case that
>>>>> don't line up well with the existing non-member/overload API?
>>>>>
>>>>> - Dave
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> In particular, the need arose for BasicBlocks, MachineBasicBlocks,
>>>>>> VPBlockBase and clang::CFGBlock.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The least invasive change seemed to be to use the interface already
>>>>>> being used in MachineBasicBlock and clang::CFGBlock, and:
>>>>>> (1) update BasicBlock to use this instead of the "global"
>>>>>> `succ_iterator` in IR/CFG.h
>>>>>> (2) add the same interfaces in VPBlockBase as simple wrappers over
>>>>>> existing Successors/Predecessors vectors.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've been working on a few patches to make this happen, but I'd like
>>>>>> the community's thoughts on this before deep-diving into code reviews.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For some concrete view of what the changes look like, I uploaded two
>>>>>> preliminary patches:
>>>>>> (1) part 1: D75881 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D75881>: Introducing
>>>>>> class specific iterators
>>>>>> (2) D75882 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D75882>
>>>>>> (1) part 2: pending: Cleaning up existing usages; example
>>>>>> replacement: `succ_begin(BB)` with `BB->succ_begin()`.
>>>>>> (1) part3/4: pending: Add class specific iterators to `Instruction`
>>>>>> and clean up existing usages just as for `BasicBlock`.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I split the above (1) just to clarify what interfaces are added
>>>>>> versus the NFC cleanups that follow. But it could be done just as well in a
>>>>>> single patch.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I welcome comments on this, and if there's something I missed
>>>>>> explaining please let me know.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>>> Alina
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>>>>>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
>>>>>> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>>>>>>
>>>>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20200312/f83f75f2/attachment-0001.html>