When i compile c++ class to IR code, the int assignment statement will turn into align 8(while one member is double). Why? When all members are int type, it will be align 4.
class _AA_ {
public:
int a = 11;
double b = 22;
};
This will turn into:
define linkonce_odr void #_ZN4_AA_C2Ev(%class._AA_*) unnamed_addr #1 align 2 {
%2 = alloca %class._AA_*, align 8
store %class._AA_* %0, %class._AA_** %2, align 8
%3 = load %class._AA_*, %class._AA_** %2, align 8
%4 = getelementptr inbounds %class._AA_, %class._AA_* %3, i32 0, i32 0
store i32 11, i32* %4, align 8
%5 = getelementptr inbounds %class._AA_, %class._AA_* %3, i32 0, i32 1
store double 2.200000e+01, double* %5, align 8
ret void
}
Since you are wrapping the two variables in a structure (class and struct are the same for this purpose), their relative positions must always be the same. So the structure as a whole must have highest alignment of all members, which is 8 from the double.
And since you have standard layout object, the first declared member must be at offset 0, so also has the alignment of the containing object.
If you only have integers, their alignment is just 4, so the object has only 4 as well.
Other than the first member will only get their natural alignment generally as they will be placed after the preceding element with just enough padding to satisfy that. It is only the first element that inherits the alignment of the containing object.
Related
So my C code is:
#include <stdio.h>
void main(){
int a, b,c, d;
b = 18, c = 112;
b = a - d;
d = a - d;
}
and part of its IR is:
%5 = load i32, i32* %1, align 4
%6 = load i32, i32* %4, align 4
%7 = sub nsw i32 %5, %6
store i32 %7, i32* %2, align 4
%8 = load i32, i32* %1, align 4
%9 = load i32, i32* %4, align 4
%10 = sub nsw i32 %8, %9
store i32 %10, i32* %4, align 4
I have implemented LVN algorithm to detect the redundant expression which is d = a - d. Now for optimization, I need to manipulate the instruction and make it d = b. I am not sure how to do it with llvm and how I can manipulate the IR.
I am new in llvm so it might be a silly question but I am really confused. Since, llvm works on IR, I understand that when it see "d = a - d" it will first load a and d, but the binary operation and store instruction in IR needs to be changed so that %4 gets the value from %2. Can anyone help me checking if I am understanding this correctly and how I can manipulate the IR to optimize the code.
First of all, let's replace your example program with one that does not invoke undefined behaviour (due to accessing uninitialized variables), so that the UB does not confuse the issue:
void f(int a, int b, int c, int d){
b = a - d;
d = a - d;
// Code that uses b and d
}
(I've also removed the two assignments as they didn't have any effect and will disappear after mem2reg anyway.)
Now to actually answer your question: Most optimizations run after the mem2reg pass, which converts memory accesses to registers where possible. This is important because, unlike memory locations, LLVM registers can only be assigned from a single point in the source, so mem2reg turns the code into SSA form, which is required for many optimizations to work.
If we apply mem2reg to the example code, we get:
define void #f(i32, i32, i32, i32) #0 {
%5 = sub nsw i32 %0, %3
%6 = sub nsw i32 %0, %3
; Code that uses b and d
}
So now we'd apply your analysis to find out that %6 is equivalent to %5. With that information we can remove the definition of %6 and replace all the occurrences of %6 with %5 (note that this would be more complicated if %5 and %6 were in the different basic blocks where one didn't dominate the other). To do that you can find all uses of %6 using the uses() method, which tells you which instructions have %6 as which operand. Then you can just set that operand to be a reference to %5 instead.
I want to check if an stack allocation of an array has a constant size or a dynamic size (calculated at runtime). For example
int myInt;
scanf("%d", &myInt);
int buffer[myInt]; //dynamic sized array
The dynamic sized array gets converted to llvm IR like this:
%myInt = alloca i32, align 4
%saved_stack = alloca i8*
%call = call i32 (i8*, ...) #__isoc99_scanf(i8* getelementptr inbounds ([3 x i8], [3 x i8]* #.str, i32 0, i32 0), i32* %myInt)
%0 = load i32, i32* %myInt, align 4
%1 = zext i32 %0 to i64
%2 = call i8* #llvm.stacksave()
store i8* %2, i8** %saved_stack
%vla = alloca i32, i64 %1, align 16 //allocation
%3 = load i8*, i8** %saved_stack
call void #llvm.stackrestore(i8* %3)
A constant sized array:
int buffer2[123];
LLVM IR:
%buffer2 = alloca [123 x i32], align 16
How can I identify if an alloca instruction allocates a dynamically sized array or a constant sized array?
Look at class AllocaInst in "include/llvm/IR/Instructions.h". It contains a method that returns the size of allocated array
/// Get the number of elements allocated. For a simple allocation of a single
/// element, this will return a constant 1 value.
const Value *getArraySize() const { return getOperand(0); }
Once you have the Value * for the size of the array, you should be able to analyze if that is a constant or not, by using dyn_cast<ConstantInt>. (grep for this expression. It is widely used in the code).
Assume a simple partial evaluation scenario:
#include <vector>
/* may be known at runtime */
int someConstant();
/* can be partially evaluated */
double foo(std::vector<double> args) {
return args[someConstant()] * someConstant();
}
Let's say that someConstant() is known and does not change at runtime (e.g. given by the user once) and can be replaced by the corresponding int literal. If foo is part of the hot path, I expect a significant performance improvement:
/* partially evaluated, someConstant() == 2 */
double foo(std::vector<double> args) {
return args[2] * 2;
}
My current take on that problem would be to generate LLVM IR at runtime, because I know the structure of the partially evaluated code (so I would not need a general purpose partial evaluator).
So I want to write a function foo_ir that generates IR code that does the same thing as foo, but not calling someConstant(), because it is known at runtime.
Simple enough, isn't it? Yet, when I look at the generated IR for the code above:
; Function Attrs: uwtable
define double #_Z3fooSt6vectorIdSaIdEE(%"class.std::vector"* %args) #0 {
%1 = call i32 #_Z12someConstantv()
%2 = sext i32 %1 to i64
%3 = call double* #_ZNSt6vectorIdSaIdEEixEm(%"class.std::vector"* %args, i64 %2)
%4 = load double* %3
%5 = call i32 #_Z12someConstantv()
%6 = sitofp i32 %5 to double
%7 = fmul double %4, %6
ret double %7
}
; Function Attrs: nounwind uwtable
define linkonce_odr double* #_ZNSt6vectorIdSaIdEEixEm(%"class.std::vector"* %this, i64 %__n) #1 align 2 {
%1 = alloca %"class.std::vector"*, align 8
%2 = alloca i64, align 8
store %"class.std::vector"* %this, %"class.std::vector"** %1, align 8
store i64 %__n, i64* %2, align 8
%3 = load %"class.std::vector"** %1
%4 = bitcast %"class.std::vector"* %3 to %"struct.std::_Vector_base"*
%5 = getelementptr inbounds %"struct.std::_Vector_base"* %4, i32 0, i32 0
%6 = getelementptr inbounds %"struct.std::_Vector_base<double, std::allocator<double> >::_Vector_impl"* %5, i32 0, i32 0
%7 = load double** %6, align 8
%8 = load i64* %2, align 8
%9 = getelementptr inbounds double* %7, i64 %8
ret double* %9
}
I see, that the [] was included from the STL definition (function #_ZNSt6vectorIdSaIdEEixEm) - fair enough. The problem is: It could as well be some member function, or even a direct data access, I simply cannot assume the data layout to be the same everywhere, so at development-time, I do not know the concrete std::vector layout of the host machine.
Is there some way to use C++ metaprogramming to get the required information at compile time? i.e. is there some way to ask llvm to provide IR for std::vector's [] method?
As a bonus: I would prefer to not enforce the compilation of the library with clang, instead, LLVM shall be a runtime-dependency, so just invoking clang at compile time (even if I do not know how to do this) is a second-best solution.
Answering my own question:
While I still have no solution for the general case (e.g. std::map), there exists a simple solution for std::vector:
According to the C++ standard, the following holds for the member function data()
Returns a direct pointer to the memory array used internally by the
vector to store its owned elements.
Because elements in the vector are guaranteed to be stored in
contiguous storage locations in the same order as represented by the
vector, the pointer retrieved can be offset to access any element in
the array.
So in fact, the object-level layout of std::vector is fixed by the standard.
I am trying to use GEP to get a pointer of i32 from an array.
But the problem is: I don't know the size of the array.
The IR document on llvm.org said GEP just adds the offsets to the base address with silently-wrapping two’s complement arithmetic.
So, I want to ask for some advice.
Is it safe like this:
%v1 = alloca i32
store i32 5, i32* %v1
%6 = load i32* %v1
%7 = bitcast i32* %v0 to [1 x i32]*
%8 = getelementptr [1 x i32]* %7, i32 0, i32 %6
%9 = load i32* %8
store i32 %9, i32* %v0
Type of %v0 is i32*, and I know %v0 is pointing to an array in mem, but the size is 9, not 1.
Then I "GEP" from %7 which I treat it as a [1 x i32], not [9 x i32] , but the "offset" is 5(%6).
So, is there any problem? Not safe, or just not good but basically OK?
First of all, the entire code you wrote is equivalent to:
%x = getelementptr i32* %v0, i32 5
%y = load i32* %x
store i32* %y, %v0
There's no reason to bitcast the pointer to [1 x i32]*, just use it as-is.
Regarding your question - using a gep to get the pointer is always safe (in the sense that it's well-defined and will never crash), however there's nothing stopping it from evaluating to a pointer beyond the bounds of the array; and in such a case, accessing the memory (as you do in the subsequent load instruction) is undefined.
Also, this link might be of interest: http://llvm.org/docs/GetElementPtr.html#what-happens-if-an-array-index-is-out-of-bounds
I'm trying to figure out how to use the trampoline intrinsics in LLVM. The documentation makes mention of some amount of storage that's needed to store the trampoline in, which is platform dependent. My question is, how do I figure out how much is needed?
I found this example, that picks 32 bytes for apparently no reason. How does one choose a good value?
declare void #llvm.init.trampoline(i8*, i8*, i8*);
declare i8* #llvm.adjust.trampoline(i8*);
define i32 #foo(i32* nest %ptr, i32 %val)
{
%x = load i32* %ptr
%sum = add i32 %x, %val
ret i32 %sum
}
define i32 #main(i32, i8**)
{
%closure = alloca i32
store i32 13, i32* %closure
%closure_ptr = bitcast i32* %closure to i8*
%tramp_buf = alloca [32 x i8], align 4
%tramp_ptr = getelementptr [32 x i8]* %tramp_buf, i32 0, i32 0
call void #llvm.init.trampoline(
i8* %tramp_ptr,
i8* bitcast (i32 (i32*, i32)* #foo to i8*),
i8* %closure_ptr)
%ptr = call i8* #llvm.adjust.trampoline(i8* %tramp_ptr)
%fp = bitcast i8* %ptr to i32(i32)*
%val2 = call i32 %fp (i32 13)
; %val = call i32 #foo(i32* %closure, i32 42);
ret i32 %val2
}
Yes, trampolines are used to generate some code "on fly". It's unclear why do you need these intrinsics at all, because they are used to implement GCC's nested functions extension (in particular, when the address of the nested function is captured and the function access the stuff inside the enclosing function).
The best way to figure out the necessary size and alignment of trampoline buffer is to grep gcc sources for "TRAMPOLINE_SIZE" and "TRAMPOLINE_ALIGNMENT".
As far as I can see, at the time of this writing, the buffer of 72 bytes and alignment of 16 bytes will be enough for all the platforms gcc / LLVM supports.