How does the LLVM backend handle types (i32, i32*, ...) from intermediate representation?
For example:
define i32 #main() #0 {
%2 = alloca i32, align 4
%3 = load i32, i32* %2, align 4
%4 = add nsw i32 %3, 54
store i32 %4, i32* %2, align 4
ret i32 0
}
What is the benefit of the types in the example?
From LLVMs documentation:
The LLVM type system is one of the most important features of the intermediate representation. Being typed enables a number of optimizations to be performed on the intermediate representation directly, without having to do extra analyses on the side before the transformation. A strong type system makes it easier to read the generated code and enables novel analyses and transformations that are not feasible to perform on normal three address code representations.
Related
I want to insert instructions into function without basic block, for example:
define void #_Z2f2v() nounwind {
%a = alloca i32, align 4
%b = alloca i32, align 4
store i32 2, i32* %a, align 4
%1 = load i32* %a, align 4
%2 = icmp sgt i32 %1, 0
ret void
}
But I read LLVM document, all C++ API I have are:
BasicBlock *bb = BasicBlock::Create(...);
irBuilder.setInsertPoint(bb);
irBuilder.CreateXXXInst(...);
or
Instruction *inst = new XXXInst(..., Instruction *insertBefore);
Instruction *inst = new XXXInst(..., BasicBlock *insertAtEnd);
It seems that I must create a BasicBlock at the beginning of a function.
How could I create instruction into function without BasicBlock by C++ API ?
I want to insert instructions into function without basic block, for example:
define void #_Z2f2v() nounwind {
%a = alloca i32, align 4
%b = alloca i32, align 4
store i32 2, i32* %a, align 4
%1 = load i32* %a, align 4
%2 = icmp sgt i32 %1, 0
ret void
}
That function contains exactly one basic block, not zero. To create a function like that, you add all of your instructions to the function's entry block.
How could I create instruction into function without BasicBlock by C++ API ?
You can't - neither using the C++ API nor any other way. Every instruction has to be part of a basic block by definition.
Basic blocks are the nodes in the CFG, so if you had an instruction without a basic block, it would not be part of the CFG and could therefore never be executed, which would be pointless.
I am using llvm DependenceAnalysisWrapperPass to obtain the dependence between two IR instructions. But it seems like this analysis only output dependence between load/store instructions, but not say dependence between a load and a arithmetic instructions. Is there any pass in LLVM can output a more comprehensive dependence among instructions?
For example:
%retval = alloca i32, align 4
%a = alloca i32, align 4
%b = alloca i32, align 4
%r = alloca i32, align 4
store i32 0, i32* %retval, align 4
store i32 1, i32* %a, align 4
store i32 2, i32* %b, align 4
%0 = load i32, i32* %a, align 4
%1 = load i32, i32* %b, align 4
%add = add nsw i32 %0, %1
store i32 %add, i32* %r, align 4
%2 = load i32, i32* %r, align 4
ret i32 %2
By using the DependenceAnalysisWrapperPass, it outputs the following dependency graph
Dependency Graph
It shows that the two load instructions depend on the two store instructions, respectively. However it does not show the dependency between, say, the two load instructions and the following add instruction. This is expected, since the code of DependenceAnalysisWrapperPass says that it only shows the dependence between store and load instructions. My question is that is there any pass available showing other dependences as well?
The source code shows the information you want.
Each instruction's operands are precisely those instructions (or other values) on which it depends. This is a general principle of LLVM. The pass you've seen exists because loads and stores are an exception. However, loads and stores are the only exception.
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.
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'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.