Siddhanathan Shanmugam <siddhanathan+...@gmail.com> writes: >> I would be happy to advise if you would like to pick this up. > > Thanks Ben! > >> This would mean that Haskell libraries compiled with different flags >> would not be ABI compatible. > > Wait, can we not maintain ABI compatibility if we limit the target > features using a compiler flag? Sometimes (for performance reasons) > it's reasonable to request the compiler to only generate SSE > instructions, even if AVX2 is available on the target. On GCC we can > use the flag -msse to do just that. > I think the reasoning here is the following (please excuse the rather contrived example): Consider a function f with two variants,
module AvxImpl where
{-# OPTIONS_GHC -mavx #-}
f :: DoubleX4# -> DoubleX4# -> Double
module SseImpl where
{-# OPTIONS_GHC -msse #-}
f :: DoubleX4# -> DoubleX4# -> Double
If we allow GHC to pass arguments with SIMD registers we now have a bit
of a conundrum: The calling convention for AvxImpl.f will require that
we pass the two arguments in YMM registers, whereas SseImpl.f will
be via passed some other means (perhaps two pairs of XMM registers).
In the C world this isn't a problem AFAIK since intrinsic types map
directly to register classes. Consequently, I can look at a C
declaration type,
double f(__m256 x, __m256 y);
and tell you precisely the calling convention that would be used. In
GHC, however, we have an abstract vector model and therefore the calling
convention is determined by which ISA the compiler is targetting.
I really don't know how to fix this "correctly". Currently we assume
that there is a static mapping between STG registers and machine
registers. Giving this up sounds quite painful.
Cheers,
- Ben
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list ghc-devs@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
