On Sun, Mar 12, 2017 at 10:25:48PM +0000, Dibyendu Majumdar wrote: > On 12 March 2017 at 20:30, Luc Van Oostenryck <luc.vanoostenryck@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > I have begun to try to make use of this and I'm now convinced > > that this direction is not a viable solution for sparse. > > > > Sparse's IR is slightly lower-level that LLVM's IR, more close > > to what a real CPU would do. This can already be seen at some > > instructions (nothing like GEP in sparse), the real difference > > is less obvious but it's heer that things begin to hurt. > > Indeed, sparse's CPU-like model implies that values are typeless > > but have a size and sparse's CSE and simplification is heavily > > based on this. > > Once you try to add and maintain complete and correct typing to > > sparse's instructions so that they can be used easily by sparse-llvm > > you realize that: > > - you need to add a lot more casts > > - you need to change CSE to make things equivalent only if they > > have the same type > > - a lot of simplifications are wrong, some can be corrected by adding > > even more casts. > > > > So, while I'm very fine to add typing info where it was missing, > > I have no interest in making the simplifications more complex and > > of lesser quality. > > > > I do not know / understand enough to comment on this but I find that > your patches are working well for sparse-llvm. Yes, sure. This fixes a number of issues regarding sparse-llvm and more importantly it gives opportinities for even more fixes. But if you look at patch 4/4, you can see that I already had to restrict equivalent (for Common Subexpression Elimination) PSEUDO_VAL to those of the same type. That's annoying. Once you take the simplifications in account, you realize that a pseudo that had one type before simplification become of another type after simplification. This is more annoying but yes fixable with a cost. And in general, the simplifications we do destroy the exact (C) types. >From what I've seen there is no way we can keep the full types and do the simplifications we do. So, even giving the correct types to the instructions that missed them is useless once you do the CSE and the simplifications. Which is perfectly logical, once the types have been validated why would the IR instructions mind that the value is 'int' or 'long' if both have the same size, same with a plain 'int' and a 'const int'? Same with addresses of object of different types. After all, LLVM also don't care much about primitive types, integers also are not typed, just their size matter (and the information about the size is carried by the instruction). It's only for pointers that LLVM care about the size. > In particular without > the type information in constants, I cannot see how variadic functions > can be called correctly. Yes, variadic called with constants is an 'interesting' case. But here also, it's not the the type that is needed for correctness, it's only the size. > If the changes done so far haven't broken anything then perhaps they > can be left in? I'll of course do my best to keep as much as possible. For sparse-llvm, I haven't thought a lot about it, partly because I'm not interested in it, but I think there is two possibilities for it to be correct and complete: 1) ignore as much typing as possible, including casting pointers to integer of the right size (wich will emiminate all issues with GEP and pointer arithmetic, and only casting them back to pointers for loads & stores. 2) bypass the CSE & simplification (and possibly using LLVM's optimization phases). -- Luc Van Oostenryck -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-sparse" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
