[llvm-dev] Is it legal to pass a half by value on x86_64? (original) (raw)

Wang, Pengfei via llvm-dev llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Fri Mar 5 06:46:35 PST 2021

Hi Jason,

The different behavior between Linux and Windows comes form the difference of the calling conversion. Windows uses 4 registers for arguments passing which Linux uses 6. https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/cpp/build/x64-calling-convention?view=msvc-160#parameter-passing

Thanks Pengfei

From: llvm-dev <llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org> On Behalf Of Jason Hafer via llvm-dev Sent: Friday, March 5, 2021 10:21 PM To: Craig Topper <craig.topper at gmail.com> Cc: llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] Is it legal to pass a half by value on x86_64?

Hi All,

Thank you very much for all the great information. This is awesome!

To circle back on Craig's questions. I did notice LLVM 11 behave very differently.

** Per: What does "incorrect math operations" mean? The half is passed to the function as a float. The function does operations with other half numbers. On Windows when we don't get the float to half conversation the input is always truncated to 0.0.

** Per: "Do you have a more complete IR file for Windows that I can take a look at?" I can get you our IR if you want, but I think it is more convoluted than required. I was working on a unit test and I think all one needs to see the anomaly is: define void @foo(i8, i8, i8, i8, half) { ; CHECK-I686: callq __gnu_f2h_ieee

%6 = alloca half store half %4, half* %6, align 1 ret void }

x86_64-pc-windows gives: push rax .seh_stackalloc 8 .seh_endprologue movss xmm0, dword ptr [rsp + 48] # xmm0 = mem[0],zero,zero,zero movss dword ptr [rsp + 4], xmm0 # 4-byte Spill pop rax ret .seh_handlerdata .text .seh_endproc

What I find extremely interesting is the behavior seems has something to do with the stack? For dropping the inputs by one then even Windows will generate the conversion.

define void @foo(i8, i8, i8, half) { ; CHECK-I686: callq __gnu_f2h_ieee

%5 = alloca half store half %3, half* %5, align 1 ret void }

x86_64-pc-windows gives: sub rsp, 40 .seh_stackalloc 40 .seh_endprologue movabs rax, offset __gnu_f2h_ieee movaps xmm0, xmm3 call rax mov word ptr [rsp + 38], ax add rsp, 40 ret .seh_handlerdata .text .seh_endproc

** If interested, here is a dissection of our real asm. For both Windows and Linux our IR calls c2_foo() with a half(2): ... call void @c2_foo(i8* %S_6, [21 x i8*]* %ptr_gvar_instance_7, %emlrtStack* %c2_b_st_, [18 x float]* @15, half 0xH4000, [18 x i8]* %t10)

They both register this in c2_foo as: ... %c2_in2_ = alloca half store half %c2_in2, half* %c2_in2_, align 1

When we compile them, they both send 0x40000000 to c2_foo (a single). The Linux c2_foo() asm addresses this with a float2half conversion: ... mov qword ptr [rsp + 448], rdi mov qword ptr [rsp + 440], rsi mov qword ptr [rsp + 432], rdx mov qword ptr [rsp + 424], rcx movabs rcx, offset __gnu_f2h_ieee # <---Convert Here mov qword ptr [rsp + 336], r8 # 8-byte Spill call rcx mov word ptr [rsp + 422], ax mov rcx, qword ptr [rsp + 336] # 8-byte Reload mov qword ptr [rsp + 408], rcx mov qword ptr [rsp + 392], 0 mov qword ptr [rsp + 384], 0 mov qword ptr [rsp + 376], 0 mov qword ptr [rsp + 368], 0 mov rdx, qword ptr [rsp + 432] mov qword ptr [rsp + 360], rdx mov rdx, qword ptr [rsp + 432] mov rdx, qword ptr [rdx + 8] mov qword ptr [rsp + 352], rdx mov rdx, qword ptr [rsp + 440] mov rdx, qword ptr [rdx + 56] mov qword ptr [rsp + 344], rdx mov dword ptr [rsp + 400], 0 jmp .LBB9_9

The Windows c2_foo() asm is missing this conversion but treats the value as if it has been converted. ... mov rax, qword ptr [rsp + 424] movss xmm0, dword ptr [rsp + 416] # xmm0 = mem[0],zero,zero,zero # <-- moves the data like it wants to convert but never does mov qword ptr [rsp + 344], rcx mov qword ptr [rsp + 336], rdx mov qword ptr [rsp + 328], r8 mov qword ptr [rsp + 320], r9 mov qword ptr [rsp + 304], 0 mov qword ptr [rsp + 296], 0 mov qword ptr [rsp + 288], 0 mov qword ptr [rsp + 280], 0 mov rcx, qword ptr [rsp + 328] mov qword ptr [rsp + 272], rcx mov rcx, qword ptr [rsp + 328] mov rcx, qword ptr [rcx + 8] mov qword ptr [rsp + 264], rcx mov rcx, qword ptr [rsp + 336] mov rcx, qword ptr [rcx + 56] mov qword ptr [rsp + 256], rcx mov dword ptr [rsp + 312], 0 mov qword ptr [rsp + 248], rax # 8-byte Spill movss dword ptr

From: Wang, Pengfei <pengfei.wang at intel.com<mailto:pengfei.wang at intel.com>> Sent: Friday, March 5, 2021 7:30 AM To: Sjoerd Meijer <Sjoerd.Meijer at arm.com<mailto:Sjoerd.Meijer at arm.com>>; Jason Hafer <jhafer at mathworks.com<mailto:jhafer at mathworks.com>> Cc: llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org<mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> Subject: RE: Is it legal to pass a half by value on x86_64?

I guess it's designed for language portability. You can use this type across different platforms. Nevertheless, I'm not a FE expert, so I cannot think out other intentions.

The _Float16 is a primitive type in the latest x86 ABI, but there's no X86 target that supports it yet. So you cannot use it on X86 by now. I think that's the difference from __fp16 and why should use it.

We also have some discussion here. https://reviews.llvm.org/D97318

Thanks

Pengfei

From: Sjoerd Meijer <Sjoerd.Meijer at arm.com<mailto:Sjoerd.Meijer at arm.com>> Sent: Friday, March 5, 2021 5:49 PM To: Jason Hafer <jhafer at mathworks.com<mailto:jhafer at mathworks.com>>; Wang, Pengfei <pengfei.wang at intel.com<mailto:pengfei.wang at intel.com>> Cc: llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org<mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> Subject: Re: Is it legal to pass a half by value on x86_64?

__fp16 is a pure storage format. You cannot pass it by value, because only ABI<https://gitlab.com/x86-psABIs/x86-64-ABI> permissive types can be passed by value while __fp16 is not one of them.

Yep. Any specific reason to use a pure storage format? The native type is _Float16 and would give some benefits, but this is not yet supported on x86, see also:

https://clang.llvm.org/docs/LanguageExtensions.html#half-precision-floating-point

Cheers, Sjoerd.

From: llvm-dev <llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org<mailto:llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org>> on behalf of Wang, Pengfei via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org<mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> Sent: 05 March 2021 06:28 To: Jason Hafer <jhafer at mathworks.com<mailto:jhafer at mathworks.com>> Cc: llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org<mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] Is it legal to pass a half by value on x86_64?

Hi Jason,

__fp16 is a pure storage format. You cannot pass it by value, because only ABI<https://gitlab.com/x86-psABIs/x86-64-ABI> permissive types can be passed by value while __fp16 is not one of them.

half as a target independent type is legal for LLVM. It's not legal for unsupported target like X86. The behavior depends on how we lowering it. But I don't know why there's differences between Linux and Windows. Maybe because "__gnu_f2h_ieee" is a Linux only function?

Thanks

Pengfei

From: llvm-dev <llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org<mailto:llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org>> On Behalf Of Jason Hafer via llvm-dev Sent: Friday, March 5, 2021 10:46 AM To: llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org<mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> Cc: Jason Hafer <jhafer at mathworks.com<mailto:jhafer at mathworks.com>> Subject: [llvm-dev] Is it legal to pass a half by value on x86_64?

Hello,

I am attempting to understand an anomaly I am seeing when dealing with half on Windows and could use some help.

Using LLVM 8 or 10, if I have IR of the flavor below: define void @foo(i8, i8, i8, i8, half) {

%6 = alloca half

store half %4, half* %6, align 1

...

ret void

}

Using x86_64-pc-linux, we convert the float passed in with __gnu_f2h_ieee.

Using x86_64-pc-windows I do not get the conversion, so we end up with incorrect math operations.

While investigating I noticed clang gave me the error below:

error: parameters cannot have __fp16 type; did you forget * ? void foo(int dc1, int dc2,int dc3,int dc4, __fp16 in)

So, this got me wondering if "define void @foo(i8, i8, i8, i8, half) " is even legal to use or if I should rather pass by ref? I have yet to find documentation to convince me one way or the other. Thus, I was hoping someone here might be able to shed some light on the issue.

Thank you in advance!

Cheers,

JP -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20210305/ca2327ba/attachment.html>

More information about the llvm-dev mailing list