EuroLLVM took place in Glasgow this week. I wasn't there, but it's a good opportunity to check in with what's been happening in dialects for LLVM in the ~half year since my keynote at the LLVM developer meeting.
Where we came from
To give an ultra-condensed recap: The excellent idea that MLIR brought to the world of compilers is to explicitly separate the substrate in which a compiler intermediate representation is implemented (the class hierarchy and basic structures that are used to represent and manipulate the program representation at compiler runtime) from the semantic definition of a dialect (the types and operations that are available in the IR and their meaning). Multiple dialects can co-exist on the same substrate, and in fact the phases of compilation can be identified with the set of dialects that are used within each phase.
Unfortunately for AMD's shader compiler, while MLIR is part of the LLVM project and shares some foundational support libraries with LLVM, its IR substrate is entirely disjoint from LLVM's IR substrate. If you have an existing compiler built on LLVM IR, you could bolt on an MLIR-based frontend, but what we really need is a way to gradually introduce some of the capabilities offered by MLIR throughout an existing LLVM-based compilation pipeline.
That's why I started llvm-dialects last year. We published its initial release a bit more than half a year ago, and have greatly expanded its capabilities since then.
Where we are now
We have been using llvm-dialects in production for a while now. Some of its highlights so far are:
- Almost feature-complete for defining custom operations (aka intrinsics or instructions). The main thing that's missing is varargs support - we just haven't needed that yet.
- Most of the way there for defining custom types: custom types can be defined, but they can't be used everywhere. I'm working on closing the gaps as we speak - some upstream changes in LLVM itself are required.
- Expressive language for describing constraints on operation and type arguments and operation results - see examples here and here.
- Thorough, automatically generated IR verifier routines.
- A flexible and efficient visitor mechanism that is inspired by but beats LLVM's TypeSwitch in some important ways.
Transitioning to the use of llvm-dialects is a gradual process for us and far from complete. We have always had custom operations, but we used to do implement them in a rather ad-hoc manner. The old way of doing it consisted of hand-writing code like this:
SmallVector<Value *, 4> args;
std::string instName = lgcName::OutputExportXfb;
args.push_back(getInt32(xfbBuffer));
args.push_back(xfbOffset);
args.push_back(getInt32(streamId));
args.push_back(valueToWrite);
addTypeMangling(nullptr, args, instName);
return CreateNamedCall(instName, getVoidTy(), args, {});
With llvm-dialects, we can use a much cleaner builder pattern:
return create<InputImportGenericOp>(
resultTy, false, location, getInt32(0), elemIdx,
PoisonValue::get(getInt32Ty()));
Accessing the operands of a custom operation used to be a matter of code with magic numbers everywhere:
if (callInst.arg_size() > 2)
vertexIdx = isDontCareValue(callInst.getOperand(2))
? nullptr : callInst.getOperand(2);
Value *vertexIdx = nullptr;
if (!inputOp.getPerPrimitive())
vertexIdx = inputOp.getArrayIndex();
Following the example set by MLIR, these accessor methods as well as the machinery required to make the create<FooOp>(...) builder call work are automatically generated from a dialect definition written in a TableGen DSL.
An important lesson from the transition so far is that the biggest effort, but also one of the biggest benefits, has to do with getting to a properly defined IR in the first place.
I firmly believe that understanding a piece of software starts not with the code that is executed but with the interfaces and data structures that the code implements and interacts with. In a compiler, the most important data structure is the IR. You should think of the IR as the bulk of the interface for almost all compiler code.
When defining custom operations in the ad-hoc manner that we used to use, there isn't one place in which the operations themselves are defined. Instead, the definition is implicit in the scattered locations where the operations are created and consumed. More often than is comfortable, this leads to definitions that are fuzzy or confused, which leads to code that is fuzzy and confused, which leads to bugs and a high maintenance cost, which leads to the dark side (or something).
By having a designated location where the custom operations are explicitly defined - the TableGen file - there is a significant force pushing towards proper definitions. As the experience of MLIR shows, this isn't automatic (witness the rather thin documentation of many of the dialects in upstream MLIR), but without this designated location, it's bound to be worse. And so a large part of transitioning to a systematically defined dialect is cleaning up those instances of confusion and fuzziness. It pays off: I have found hidden bugs this way, and the code becomes noticeably more maintainable.
Where we want to go
llvm-dialects is already a valuable tool for us. I'm obviously biased, but if you're in a similar situation to us, or you're thinking of starting a new LLVM-based compiler, I recommend it.
There is more that can be done, though, and I'm optimistic we'll get around to further improvements over time as we gradually convert parts of our compiler that are being worked on anyway. My personal list of items on the radar:
- As mentioned already, closing the remaining gaps in custom type support.
- Our compiler uses quite complex metadata in a bunch of places. It's hard to read for humans, doesn't have a good compatibility story for lit tests, and accessing it at compile-time isn't particularly efficient. I have some ideas for how to address all these issues with an extension mechanism that could also benefit upstream LLVM.
- Compile-time optimizations. At the moment, casting custom operations is still based on string comparison, which is clearly not ideal. There are a bunch of other things in this general area as well.
- I really want to see some equivalent of MLIR regions in LLVM. But that's a non-trivial amount of work and will require patience.
There's also the question of if or when llvm-dialects will eventually be integrated into LLVM upstream. There are lots of good arguments in favor. Its DSL for defining operations is a lot friendlier than what is used for intrinsics at the moment. Getting nice, auto-generated accessor methods and thorough verification for intrinsics would clearly be a plus. But it's not a topic that I'm personally going to push in the near future. I imagine we'll eventually get there once we've collected even more experience.
Of course, if llvm-dialects is useful to you and you feel like
contributing in these or other areas, I'd be more than happy about
that!
