Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We鈥檒l occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Feature/int widths #96

Draft
wants to merge 18 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from
Draft

Conversation

s5bug
Copy link

@s5bug s5bug commented Apr 24, 2020

TODO:

  • Figure out how to parse into Word32
  • Figure out what to do about the set of simple types
  • Figure out what to do about PrimOps
  • Figure out what to do about register IDs
  • Parse int literals correctly and safely (123u8, 1i12345)

Opening this as a draft PR. It's my first time ever working on a major Haskell project, so thorough reviews would be very very appreciated 馃槃

@@ -126,8 +126,8 @@ codeGenBlock_ = fmap snd . codeGenBlock
codeGenSimpleType :: SimpleType -> CG IR.Reg
codeGenSimpleType = \case
T_Unit -> newRegWithSimpleType (-1)
T_Int64 -> newRegWithSimpleType (-2)
T_Word64 -> newRegWithSimpleType (-3)
-- T_Int width -> newRegWithSimpleType (-2)
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@csabahruska do you have an existing plan how to implement this in these abstract interpretations?

Copy link
Author

@s5bug s5bug Apr 24, 2020

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I was wondering a bit while I was writing this why a mapping from types to registers wasn't handled by Data.Map or something similar. Maybe assigning a unique type to the next available register would work?

= T_Int64
| T_Word64
= T_Int Word32
| T_Word Word32
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I would use Word32 as a parameter to define the concrete width of these types. Some ADT which is better aligned with the LLVM types would be better.

Copy link
Author

@s5bug s5bug Apr 24, 2020

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I originally used Word but llvm-hs-pure uses Word32; I got compile errors trying to use Word because of that. However, the maximum width in the LLVM spec is (2^24) - 1 bits.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Ah got it, if LLVM-hs uses in the API than no objections from my side anymore :)

@andorp
Copy link
Member

andorp commented Apr 24, 2020

It is a good practice to write tests for the changed code paths.

@andorp andorp closed this Apr 24, 2020
@andorp andorp reopened this Apr 24, 2020
@andorp
Copy link
Member

andorp commented Apr 24, 2020

What is your objective? Maybe we can lay out an implementation path that makes your experiment easier.

@s5bug
Copy link
Author

s5bug commented Apr 24, 2020

My objective here is to be able to have more number types than Int64 and Word64, and in fact support the widths that LLVM supports. This leads into what I'll try to make my next contribution which is T_Pointer a, structs, and packed structs for more detailed/complete FFI.

RE: Tests, as far as I know I need to get it compiling first before I can start testing. The current commit does not compile.

@andorp
Copy link
Member

andorp commented Apr 24, 2020

FFI sounds great! Do you see a way how HPT analysis will be able to handle these additions?

@s5bug
Copy link
Author

s5bug commented Apr 25, 2020

What do you mean by "handle"? What would be different between Int64 and Int n? (Primops should only defined for Int n -> Int n -> Int n and not Int m -> Int n -> Int p.)

Copy link
Member

@Anabra Anabra left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

All in all, seems nice although, I would prefer merging it after #32 is done.

_ -> error $ "invalid arguments: " ++ show params ++ " " ++ show args ++ " for " ++ unpackName name

int_str = case args of
[RT_Lit (LInt64 a)] -> string $ fromString $ show a
[RT_Lit (LInt 64 a)] -> string $ fromString $ show a
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Is it intended to use a specific width in each of these functions?

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

So far, I have converted primops from T_Int64 to T_Int 64, but the end goal is to generalize them (part of checkbox three, I should probably specify that). Note that operations will only be defined for numbers of the same width, i.e. add :: i8 -> i7 -> i9 should be invalid (same as how LLVM does it).

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I see, thanks!

@s5bug
Copy link
Author

s5bug commented Apr 26, 2020

#32 Looks awesome! I'll be sure to [merge/rebase, whichever one it is] my fork once its merged. I definitely agree with merging after it, because this being merged first would probably make your work harder, and that being merged first will most likely make my work easier.

@Anabra
Copy link
Member

Anabra commented Apr 26, 2020

The code rewriting is almost done for #32. What is left is to merge the changes, and address any concerns. Feel free to review the PRs :)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

3 participants