Tuesday, March 6, 2012


I've done quite a bit of work these past two months on writing an LLVM backend.
Rather than directly translate the current design (one giant function), I'm trying to map function to function, and use llvm's support for tail calls to get arguments-in-registers to work.

This requires a 'real' CPS transform, and one that's up near the front of the chain of passes, not the last thing before the backend.

The CPS transform introduces 'continuation functions' - these are similar to normal functions, except they take a single argument.  They are targeted by SSA 'terminators' like branch, jump, etc...

A continuation function corresponds to a 'basic block' in SSA - think of the phi insn as if it took the single argument and moved it into the correct register.

If every function were a tail call, we could emit all the code as basic blocks with branches of various kinds. Sadly, some calls are not tail calls.  This requires that we render the continuation function as a real function, and that all 'jumps' to it are tail calls.

Needless to say, this is a pretty major rewrite of Irken.  I've already made three failed swipes at it, but I hope to find the time to get it working within the next few months.

Monday, February 13, 2012

pattern matching with regexps

This is just a reminder to myself to think about extending pattern matching to regular expressions on strings.  It'd be a great feature, though with the famous caveat about regular expressions.  [I have a problem.  I think I can solve it with regular expressions.  Now I have two problems.]

(define sample
  "(?P<x>[0-9]+)+(?P<y>[0-9]+)" -> (+ (string->int x) (string->int y))
  "[^x]+(?P<nx>x+)[^x]+" -> (string-length nx)

I still remember looking through the ejabberd source code, trying to find their xml parser.  When it finally dawned on me that it was automagically hidden in the pattern matching, I was impressed.

Saturday, January 21, 2012

Some notes on continuation-passing style

I've been going over the CPS transform lately, and wrote some notes on how to use the transform to compile to C, stackless style.


Monday, January 9, 2012

thinking about an llvm backend, again

I've been very happy with my other project that uses LLVM as the backend for a compiler.
I've also learned a lot about LLVM's IR design.

I can't help but think that it might only take a week or two to write a back end for Irken.
However, there are a few issues.

  1. My CPS output assumes that each insn has a result that is put into a register.  This doesn't fit LLVM's model, which assumes that arguments to insns can be either an immediate or a register.  In fact, they do not allow you to put an immediate into a register.
  2. LLVM doesn't like gcc's goto-label feature.   I think they implemented it reluctantly, because it doesn't fit the SSA model very well.  The majority of funcalls by Irken are to known functions, which translate to a branch to a known label.  However, whenever higher-level functions are called, this leads to something like "goto *r0;" in C, which turns into an indirectbr insn in LLVM.  It implements this using a gigantic phi/indirectbr table at the very end of the function.  Maybe this isn't really a problem - it just looks bad.
  3. The extremely useful %cexp primitive would go away!  There's something to be said for being able to refer to OS constants, OS functions, macros, etc... with such a simple mechanism.  I'd probably just have to let it go, and force users to write stubs.
I think #1 can be dealt with by adding an extra pass that translates between the two representations.  (maybe I should revisit the CPS==SSA paper?)
Another approach might be to use an annoying alloca/store/load sequence and hope that mem2reg does a good job?

Monday, January 2, 2012

Irken status, LLVM bitcode

This is just a quick note that the Irken project has not died, only gone into a temporary hibernation.
When in the course of history it becomes necessary to earn a living...

Anyway, I have some tangentially related comments about LLVM.
My current employer is interested in maybe doing a little LLVM JIT work, wherein my experience with compilers may prove useful.  A nice side effect for me is that I finally get to play around a bit with LLVM, something which I carefully avoided while working on Irken.

My first reaction was to pick up llvm-py, which looked like a fairly complete interface to the various libraries that make up the llvm system.

Big Mistake.  It doesn't build any more.  It's only a little over a year old.  The last release of llvm-py was for LLVM 2.8rc2.  I am now running 3.0.

Here's the problem: the LLVM API's are constantly changing.  And that's a good thing, really.  But since those C++ API's are the only well-supported interface to the system, it's a moving target.

There are three main options for a compiler writer who wants to target LLVM.  The first is to use the C++ API.  (or you could use the completely undocumented and incomplete C interface).

The second option is to write llvm assembly.  This is not a bad option, but will be slower because of the need to parse the assembly.

The third is to write llvm 'bitcode'.  I thought this was probably the right approach.  Bitcode is a binary representation of the LLVM IR language, it seems that it would be likely to change much more slowly than the library interfaces.

The problem is that the person who designed the bitcode file format was on meth at the time.  This has got to be one of the most evil formats I've ever seen.  I think they were trying to make the resulting file as small as possible, but at the expense of counting every bit.  (perhaps an early LLVM project flew on a space probe?)  Just to give you an idea, 3 and 4-bit integers (not aligned on any boundary) are a common field type.  And not just that, but some of the fields are variably sized, starting at 2 bits and going up.  Symbols are represented using 6-bit characters.  Also, the concept of 'bitstream' is taken very literally, the bits in a file are viewed as if it were one large integer, starting from the LSB.  This is actually an elegant approach, but it is completely different from every other file format or network protocol.  I had to continually resist using common parsing patterns with it.   There's also a compression-like method of 'abbreviating' common record types.  And after all that work to save bits, at the end of every block the bit stream is aligned to 32 bits!

Ok, got that off my chest.

My sense is that nobody uses the bitcode format because of this (the only other implementation I could find was in Haskell, and was also impenetrable because Everything Is A Monad, You Know).  Most people just succumb to the pressure to write against the C++ API, and will then spend the rest of their lives reading the llvm-dev list to keep track of the changes.

I have mostly decoded the format, and I think I could actually output it for a compiler.
But I think I'll split the difference and start out by outputting llvm assembly to start with.  If the day comes when I need to shave some of the 10MB off the resulting .so file, and maybe speed things up, I'll revisit the bitcode issue.

In the meanwhile I've had a whack at using Cython's C++ support to make a minimal interface to LLVM where I can feed either llvm assembly or bitcode to the JIT and run it.