6 ms·

LLVM is the godsend that any new architecture (especially a VLIW) to compete with Intel needed. I'm the founder of a startup that has made a new VLIW processor

LLVM is the godsend that any new architecture (especially a VLIW) to compete with Intel needed. I'm the founder of a startup that has made a new VLIW processor with our toolchain built on top of LLVM... We get the front end and all of the languages it supports virtually for free (we've only had to make small tweaks to clang), and get to focus our effort on just the parts important to us, our actual target backend and the unique optimization steps. Right now we can take any code that compiles through LLVM and run it on a single one of our cores while finding a good chunk of ILP (we are quad issue, averaging close to 2.5 IPC, sometimes higher), and be beating out the performance of some ARM and DSP cores that are 10x the size. Multi core parallelism requires including our hand tuned libraries, but our true MIMD style of task and data level parallelism is a lot more flexible than SIMD/SIMT/SMP that you are stuck with on existing chips.

chrisseaton 9y ago
Is it the case that you can implement just a new backend and produce good machine code for your processor, or really do you need to modify the frontend to get it to generate code IR from which you can generate good machine code, because otherwise useful information has been lost by time you get the IR from the frontend?
- trsohmers 9y ago
  We have played around with having "hints" in the original source code that will be preserved through the IR, but the vast majority of the optimizations and scheduling decisions we need to do are happening once it has been converted into machine code by the backend. I may be slightly off (I'm the dumb CEO/hardware architect), but I'm fairly sure 85%-90% of our compiler work has been done on the backend... I just remember being told some tweaks were made to clang due to some weird issue.
- CalChris 9y ago
  It's really three stages, not frontend and backend. The first stage is the LLVM front end, Clang and other language parsers. They generate IR. The middle stage is the LLVM optimizer, opt, which takes IR and runs a variety of optimization passes. Opt takes and gives IR. http://llvm.org/docs/Passes.html http://llvm.org/docs/Passes.html The third is the backend code generator. It lowers IR to the target ISA. There's a tablegen description, there's are MI scheduler models which abstract architectural information as well. http://llvm.org/docs/WritingAnLLVMBackend.html http://llvm.org/docs/WritingAnLLVMBackend.html I think you really meant can you write an optimizing pass specifically for your target? Yes. But I don't think that modifying the real front end Clang is going to get you much of anything. Intrinsics are different; that's the programmer inserting ISA specific instructions rather than Clang extracting ISA specific information. Really, modifying Clang isn't going to get you anything. Thomas, what were the 'small' Clang specific tweaks?
bonzini 9y ago
I'm not sure why GCC would have been anything different. No, porting GCC to a new architecture is not a big deal. The really complex part is the ABI, and what I have heard from former GCC developers is that it's as much of a mess in LLVM, because it's simply a messy domain.
- trsohmers 9y ago
  LLVM is much more compartimentalized, so we can make changes to the backend without touching/breaking other parts. The GCC loader was miles ahead of the LLVM loader up until the past few releases, and we were originally using a modified version of the GCC loader before switching. LLVM also has a bunch of awesome projects like Poly for polyhedral compilation that we are able to use that don't exist at all for GCC, or are very difficult to integrate. LLVMs lego block like architecture (it was originally designed as a tool to help build toolchains) plus things like Tablegen enabled our single "real" software engineer/CTO to do initial bring up of a backend in under a month.
gumby 9y ago
Was this not true of GCC as well?

chrisseaton 9y ago

Is it the case that you can implement just a new backend and produce good machine code for your processor, or really do you need to modify the frontend to get it to generate code IR from which you can generate good machine code, because otherwise useful information has been lost by time you get the IR from the frontend?

trsohmers 9y ago
We have played around with having "hints" in the original source code that will be preserved through the IR, but the vast majority of the optimizations and scheduling decisions we need to do are happening once it has been converted into machine code by the backend. I may be slightly off (I'm the dumb CEO/hardware architect), but I'm fairly sure 85%-90% of our compiler work has been done on the backend... I just remember being told some tweaks were made to clang due to some weird issue.
CalChris 9y ago
It's really three stages, not frontend and backend. The first stage is the LLVM front end, Clang and other language parsers. They generate IR. The middle stage is the LLVM optimizer, opt, which takes IR and runs a variety of optimization passes. Opt takes and gives IR. http://llvm.org/docs/Passes.html http://llvm.org/docs/Passes.html The third is the backend code generator. It lowers IR to the target ISA. There's a tablegen description, there's are MI scheduler models which abstract architectural information as well. http://llvm.org/docs/WritingAnLLVMBackend.html http://llvm.org/docs/WritingAnLLVMBackend.html I think you really meant can you write an optimizing pass specifically for your target? Yes. But I don't think that modifying the real front end Clang is going to get you much of anything. Intrinsics are different; that's the programmer inserting ISA specific instructions rather than Clang extracting ISA specific information. Really, modifying Clang isn't going to get you anything. Thomas, what were the 'small' Clang specific tweaks?

bonzini 9y ago

I'm not sure why GCC would have been anything different. No, porting GCC to a new architecture is not a big deal. The really complex part is the ABI, and what I have heard from former GCC developers is that it's as much of a mess in LLVM, because it's simply a messy domain.

trsohmers 9y ago
LLVM is much more compartimentalized, so we can make changes to the backend without touching/breaking other parts. The GCC loader was miles ahead of the LLVM loader up until the past few releases, and we were originally using a modified version of the GCC loader before switching. LLVM also has a bunch of awesome projects like Poly for polyhedral compilation that we are able to use that don't exist at all for GCC, or are very difficult to integrate. LLVMs lego block like architecture (it was originally designed as a tool to help build toolchains) plus things like Tablegen enabled our single "real" software engineer/CTO to do initial bring up of a backend in under a month.

gumby 9y ago

Was this not true of GCC as well?