LLVM: The bad parts
npopov.com
LLVM: The bad parts
1–10 of 81 posts
Re: LLVM: The bad parts
#2[deleted]
Re: LLVM: The bad parts
#3It's amazing to me that this is trusted to build so much of software. It's basically impossible to audit yet Rust is supposed to be safe. It's a pipe dream that it will ever be complete or Rust will deprecate it. I think infinite churn is the point.
Re: LLVM: The bad parts
#4This is a good write up and I agree with pretty much all of it.
Two comments:
- LLVM IR is actually remarkably stable these days. I was able to rebase Fil-C from llvm 17 to 20 in a single day of work. In other projects I’ve maintained a LLVM pass that worked across multiple llvm versions and it was straightforward to do.
- LICM register pressure is a big issue especially when the source isn’t C or C++. I don’t think the problem here is necessarily licm. It might be that regalloc needs to be taught to rematerialize
Re: LLVM: The bad parts
#5This is a good write up and I agree with pretty much all of it. Two comments: - LLVM IR is actually remarkably stable these days. I was able to rebase Fil-C from llvm 17 to 20 in a single day of work. In other projects I’ve maintained a LLVM pass that worked across multiple llvm versions and it was straightforward to do. - LICM register pressure is a big issue especially when the source isn’t C or C++. I don’t think…
> It might be that regalloc needs to be taught to rematerialize
It knows how to rematerialize, and has for a long time, but the backend is generally more local/has less visibility than the optimizer. This causes it to struggle to consistently undo bad decisions LICM may have made.
Re: LLVM: The bad parts
#6Given some of the discussions I've been stuck in over the past couple of weeks, one of the things I especially want to see built out for LLVM is a comprehensive executable test suite that starts not from C but from LLVM IR. If you've ever tried working on your own backend, one of the things you notice is there's not a lot of documentation about all of the SelectionDAG stuff (or GlobalISel), and there is also a lot of semi-generic "support X operation on top of Y operation if X isn't supported." And the precise semantics of X or Y aren't clearly documented, so it's quite easy to build the wrong thing.
Re: LLVM: The bad parts
#7This is a good write up and I agree with pretty much all of it. Two comments: - LLVM IR is actually remarkably stable these days. I was able to rebase Fil-C from llvm 17 to 20 in a single day of work. In other projects I’ve maintained a LLVM pass that worked across multiple llvm versions and it was straightforward to do. - LICM register pressure is a big issue especially when the source isn’t C or C++. I don’t think…
> It might be that regalloc needs to be taught to rematerialize It knows how to rematerialize, and has for a long time, but the backend is generally more local/has less visibility than the optimizer. This causes it to struggle to consistently undo bad decisions LICM may have made.
> It knows how to rematerialize
That's very cool, I didn't realize that.
> but the backend is generally more local/has less visibility than the optimizer
I don't really buy that. It's operating on SSA, so it has exactly the same view as LICM in practice (to my knowledge LICM doesn't cross function boundary).
LICM can't possibly know the cost of hoisting. Regalloc does have decent visibility into cost. Hence why this feels like a regalloc remat problem to me
Re: LLVM: The bad parts
#8It's amazing to me that this is trusted to build so much of software. It's basically impossible to audit yet Rust is supposed to be safe. It's a pipe dream that it will ever be complete or Rust will deprecate it. I think infinite churn is the point.
Go is sometimes criticised for not using LLVM but I think they made the right choice.
For starters the tooling would be much slower if it required LLVM.
Re: LLVM: The bad parts
#9[dead]
Re: LLVM: The bad parts
#10[dead]
What section is that?