Hi Antonio!
On Mon, Mar 20, 2006 at 10:52 +0100, Antonio Cuni wrote:
> holger krekel wrote:
> >Hi Antonio,
> >
> >On Sun, Mar 19, 2006 at 20:53 +0100, Antonio Cuni wrote:
> >>as I said I've begun writing the .NET CLI backend; it is still very
> >>experimental but it can already compile correctly some code snippets
> >>such as the algorithm for computing fibonacci's numbers.
> >
> >cool! I would be interested to hear a bit more about your concrete
> >current approach.
>
> I respond here so that other can read, if they are interested.
sure! that was the idea :)
> The first decision I took is whether to generate IL code (to be
> assembled with ilasm) or C# code: I choose the first mainly because C#
> lacks the goto statement and it would be difficult to implement flow
> control.
makes sense.
What you left out is: where did you start from? the llvm or genc backend
i guess?
> Given this, my current approach if fairly naive and certainly not
> efficient: at the moment the compiler does a 1-to-1 translation between
> low level operation expressed in SSA; for example the simple function:
>
> def bar(a,b):
> return a+b
>
> is compiled into the following IL code:
>
> .method static public int32 bar(int32 a_1, int32 b_1) il managed
> {
> .locals (int32 v6, int32 v12)
>
> block0:
> ldarg.s 'a_1'
> ldarg.s 'b_1'
> add
> stloc.s 'v12'
> ldloc.s 'v12'
> stloc.s 'v6'
> br.s block1
>
> block1:
> ldloc.s 'v6'
> ret
> }
>
> As you can see there are many unnecessary operations: the result of
> 'add' is stored to v12, loaded from v12, stored in v6 and then loaded
> from v6! The same is true for the branch instruction, which is unneeded.
> I think it should be fairly simple to translate from the SSA form to a
> more "stack-friendly" form useful for stack-based machines; the question
> is: where to put such code?
You need probably not worry about these optimizations - i am sure
that the CLR takes care of that so it shouldn't reduce in a
speed penalty (most of the time).
But if you want to do it then i suggest the same directory
structure as "pypy/translator/llvm", maybe a "backendopt"
directory where you put the graph transformation.
> Since it could be useful even for other backends, it would be nice to
> put it in some place where it can be shared from several backends: one
> option could be to write it as a backend optimization, but in this case
> we have to introduce new low level operations for stack manipulation,
> such as 'push', 'pop' or 'dup'.
With the new operations it becomes probably a final step before
the actual code generation. If this proves to be generally useful
(might well be) we can move it from a the IL directory to the common
"pypy/translator/backendopt" (and maybe rename the directory to account
for optimizations as well as transformations for other purposes).
cheers,
holger
_______________________________________________
[email protected]
http://codespeak.net/mailman/listinfo/pypy-dev
