diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'docs/tutorial/LangImpl7.rst')
| -rw-r--r-- | docs/tutorial/LangImpl7.rst | 2005 |
1 files changed, 2005 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/docs/tutorial/LangImpl7.rst b/docs/tutorial/LangImpl7.rst new file mode 100644 index 0000000000..602dcb5f6f --- /dev/null +++ b/docs/tutorial/LangImpl7.rst @@ -0,0 +1,2005 @@ +======================================================= +Kaleidoscope: Extending the Language: Mutable Variables +======================================================= + +.. contents:: + :local: + +Written by `Chris Lattner <mailto:sabre@nondot.org>`_ + +Chapter 7 Introduction +====================== + +Welcome to Chapter 7 of the "`Implementing a language with +LLVM <index.html>`_" tutorial. In chapters 1 through 6, we've built a +very respectable, albeit simple, `functional programming +language <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_programming>`_. In our +journey, we learned some parsing techniques, how to build and represent +an AST, how to build LLVM IR, and how to optimize the resultant code as +well as JIT compile it. + +While Kaleidoscope is interesting as a functional language, the fact +that it is functional makes it "too easy" to generate LLVM IR for it. In +particular, a functional language makes it very easy to build LLVM IR +directly in `SSA +form <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Static_single_assignment_form>`_. +Since LLVM requires that the input code be in SSA form, this is a very +nice property and it is often unclear to newcomers how to generate code +for an imperative language with mutable variables. + +The short (and happy) summary of this chapter is that there is no need +for your front-end to build SSA form: LLVM provides highly tuned and +well tested support for this, though the way it works is a bit +unexpected for some. + +Why is this a hard problem? +=========================== + +To understand why mutable variables cause complexities in SSA +construction, consider this extremely simple C example: + +.. code-block:: c + + int G, H; + int test(_Bool Condition) { + int X; + if (Condition) + X = G; + else + X = H; + return X; + } + +In this case, we have the variable "X", whose value depends on the path +executed in the program. Because there are two different possible values +for X before the return instruction, a PHI node is inserted to merge the +two values. The LLVM IR that we want for this example looks like this: + +.. code-block:: llvm + + @G = weak global i32 0 ; type of @G is i32* + @H = weak global i32 0 ; type of @H is i32* + + define i32 @test(i1 %Condition) { + entry: + br i1 %Condition, label %cond_true, label %cond_false + + cond_true: + %X.0 = load i32* @G + br label %cond_next + + cond_false: + %X.1 = load i32* @H + br label %cond_next + + cond_next: + %X.2 = phi i32 [ %X.1, %cond_false ], [ %X.0, %cond_true ] + ret i32 %X.2 + } + +In this example, the loads from the G and H global variables are +explicit in the LLVM IR, and they live in the then/else branches of the +if statement (cond\_true/cond\_false). In order to merge the incoming +values, the X.2 phi node in the cond\_next block selects the right value +to use based on where control flow is coming from: if control flow comes +from the cond\_false block, X.2 gets the value of X.1. Alternatively, if +control flow comes from cond\_true, it gets the value of X.0. The intent +of this chapter is not to explain the details of SSA form. For more +information, see one of the many `online +references <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Static_single_assignment_form>`_. + +The question for this article is "who places the phi nodes when lowering +assignments to mutable variables?". The issue here is that LLVM +*requires* that its IR be in SSA form: there is no "non-ssa" mode for +it. However, SSA construction requires non-trivial algorithms and data +structures, so it is inconvenient and wasteful for every front-end to +have to reproduce this logic. + +Memory in LLVM +============== + +The 'trick' here is that while LLVM does require all register values to +be in SSA form, it does not require (or permit) memory objects to be in +SSA form. In the example above, note that the loads from G and H are +direct accesses to G and H: they are not renamed or versioned. This +differs from some other compiler systems, which do try to version memory +objects. In LLVM, instead of encoding dataflow analysis of memory into +the LLVM IR, it is handled with `Analysis +Passes <../WritingAnLLVMPass.html>`_ which are computed on demand. + +With this in mind, the high-level idea is that we want to make a stack +variable (which lives in memory, because it is on the stack) for each +mutable object in a function. To take advantage of this trick, we need +to talk about how LLVM represents stack variables. + +In LLVM, all memory accesses are explicit with load/store instructions, +and it is carefully designed not to have (or need) an "address-of" +operator. Notice how the type of the @G/@H global variables is actually +"i32\*" even though the variable is defined as "i32". What this means is +that @G defines *space* for an i32 in the global data area, but its +*name* actually refers to the address for that space. Stack variables +work the same way, except that instead of being declared with global +variable definitions, they are declared with the `LLVM alloca +instruction <../LangRef.html#i_alloca>`_: + +.. code-block:: llvm + + define i32 @example() { + entry: + %X = alloca i32 ; type of %X is i32*. + ... + %tmp = load i32* %X ; load the stack value %X from the stack. + %tmp2 = add i32 %tmp, 1 ; increment it + store i32 %tmp2, i32* %X ; store it back + ... + +This code shows an example of how you can declare and manipulate a stack +variable in the LLVM IR. Stack memory allocated with the alloca +instruction is fully general: you can pass the address of the stack slot +to functions, you can store it in other variables, etc. In our example +above, we could rewrite the example to use the alloca technique to avoid +using a PHI node: + +.. code-block:: llvm + + @G = weak global i32 0 ; type of @G is i32* + @H = weak global i32 0 ; type of @H is i32* + + define i32 @test(i1 %Condition) { + entry: + %X = alloca i32 ; type of %X is i32*. + br i1 %Condition, label %cond_true, label %cond_false + + cond_true: + %X.0 = load i32* @G + store i32 %X.0, i32* %X ; Update X + br label %cond_next + + cond_false: + %X.1 = load i32* @H + store i32 %X.1, i32* %X ; Update X + br label %cond_next + + cond_next: + %X.2 = load i32* %X ; Read X + ret i32 %X.2 + } + +With this, we have discovered a way to handle arbitrary mutable +variables without the need to create Phi nodes at all: + +#. Each mutable variable becomes a stack allocation. +#. Each read of the variable becomes a load from the stack. +#. Each update of the variable becomes a store to the stack. +#. Taking the address of a variable just uses the stack address + directly. + +While this solution has solved our immediate problem, it introduced +another one: we have now apparently introduced a lot of stack traffic +for very simple and common operations, a major performance problem. +Fortunately for us, the LLVM optimizer has a highly-tuned optimization +pass named "mem2reg" that handles this case, promoting allocas like this +into SSA registers, inserting Phi nodes as appropriate. If you run this +example through the pass, for example, you'll get: + +.. code-block:: bash + + $ llvm-as < example.ll | opt -mem2reg | llvm-dis + @G = weak global i32 0 + @H = weak global i32 0 + + define i32 @test(i1 %Condition) { + entry: + br i1 %Condition, label %cond_true, label %cond_false + + cond_true: + %X.0 = load i32* @G + br label %cond_next + + cond_false: + %X.1 = load i32* @H + br label %cond_next + + cond_next: + %X.01 = phi i32 [ %X.1, %cond_false ], [ %X.0, %cond_true ] + ret i32 %X.01 + } + +The mem2reg pass implements the standard "iterated dominance frontier" +algorithm for constructing SSA form and has a number of optimizations +that speed up (very common) degenerate cases. The mem2reg optimization +pass is the answer to dealing with mutable variables, and we highly +recommend that you depend on it. Note that mem2reg only works on +variables in certain circumstances: + +#. mem2reg is alloca-driven: it looks for allocas and if it can handle + them, it promotes them. It does not apply to global variables or heap + allocations. +#. mem2reg only looks for alloca instructions in the entry block of the + function. Being in the entry block guarantees that the alloca is only + executed once, which makes analysis simpler. +#. mem2reg only promotes allocas whose uses are direct loads and stores. + If the address of the stack object is passed to a function, or if any + funny pointer arithmetic is involved, the alloca will not be + promoted. +#. mem2reg only works on allocas of `first + class <../LangRef.html#t_classifications>`_ values (such as pointers, + scalars and vectors), and only if the array size of the allocation is + 1 (or missing in the .ll file). mem2reg is not capable of promoting + structs or arrays to registers. Note that the "scalarrepl" pass is + more powerful and can promote structs, "unions", and arrays in many + cases. + +All of these properties are easy to satisfy for most imperative +languages, and we'll illustrate it below with Kaleidoscope. The final +question you may be asking is: should I bother with this nonsense for my +front-end? Wouldn't it be better if I just did SSA construction +directly, avoiding use of the mem2reg optimization pass? In short, we +strongly recommend that you use this technique for building SSA form, +unless there is an extremely good reason not to. Using this technique +is: + +- Proven and well tested: llvm-gcc and clang both use this technique + for local mutable variables. As such, the most common clients of LLVM + are using this to handle a bulk of their variables. You can be sure + that bugs are found fast and fixed early. +- Extremely Fast: mem2reg has a number of special cases that make it + fast in common cases as well as fully general. For example, it has + fast-paths for variables that are only used in a single block, + variables that only have one assignment point, good heuristics to + avoid insertion of unneeded phi nodes, etc. +- Needed for debug info generation: `Debug information in + LLVM <../SourceLevelDebugging.html>`_ relies on having the address of + the variable exposed so that debug info can be attached to it. This + technique dovetails very naturally with this style of debug info. + +If nothing else, this makes it much easier to get your front-end up and +running, and is very simple to implement. Lets extend Kaleidoscope with +mutable variables now! + +Mutable Variables in Kaleidoscope +================================= + +Now that we know the sort of problem we want to tackle, lets see what +this looks like in the context of our little Kaleidoscope language. +We're going to add two features: + +#. The ability to mutate variables with the '=' operator. +#. The ability to define new variables. + +While the first item is really what this is about, we only have +variables for incoming arguments as well as for induction variables, and +redefining those only goes so far :). Also, the ability to define new +variables is a useful thing regardless of whether you will be mutating +them. Here's a motivating example that shows how we could use these: + +:: + + # Define ':' for sequencing: as a low-precedence operator that ignores operands + # and just returns the RHS. + def binary : 1 (x y) y; + + # Recursive fib, we could do this before. + def fib(x) + if (x < 3) then + 1 + else + fib(x-1)+fib(x-2); + + # Iterative fib. + def fibi(x) + var a = 1, b = 1, c in + (for i = 3, i < x in + c = a + b : + a = b : + b = c) : + b; + + # Call it. + fibi(10); + +In order to mutate variables, we have to change our existing variables +to use the "alloca trick". Once we have that, we'll add our new +operator, then extend Kaleidoscope to support new variable definitions. + +Adjusting Existing Variables for Mutation +========================================= + +The symbol table in Kaleidoscope is managed at code generation time by +the '``NamedValues``' map. This map currently keeps track of the LLVM +"Value\*" that holds the double value for the named variable. In order +to support mutation, we need to change this slightly, so that it +``NamedValues`` holds the *memory location* of the variable in question. +Note that this change is a refactoring: it changes the structure of the +code, but does not (by itself) change the behavior of the compiler. All +of these changes are isolated in the Kaleidoscope code generator. + +At this point in Kaleidoscope's development, it only supports variables +for two things: incoming arguments to functions and the induction +variable of 'for' loops. For consistency, we'll allow mutation of these +variables in addition to other user-defined variables. This means that +these will both need memory locations. + +To start our transformation of Kaleidoscope, we'll change the +NamedValues map so that it maps to AllocaInst\* instead of Value\*. Once +we do this, the C++ compiler will tell us what parts of the code we need +to update: + +.. code-block:: c++ + + static std::map<std::string, AllocaInst*> NamedValues; + +Also, since we will need to create these alloca's, we'll use a helper +function that ensures that the allocas are created in the entry block of +the function: + +.. code-block:: c++ + + /// CreateEntryBlockAlloca - Create an alloca instruction in the entry block of + /// the function. This is used for mutable variables etc. + static AllocaInst *CreateEntryBlockAlloca(Function *TheFunction, + const std::string &VarName) { + IRBuilder<> TmpB(&TheFunction->getEntryBlock(), + TheFunction->getEntryBlock().begin()); + return TmpB.CreateAlloca(Type::getDoubleTy(getGlobalContext()), 0, + VarName.c_str()); + } + +This funny looking code creates an IRBuilder object that is pointing at +the first instruction (.begin()) of the entry block. It then creates an +alloca with the expected name and returns it. Because all values in +Kaleidoscope are doubles, there is no need to pass in a type to use. + +With this in place, the first functionality change we want to make is to +variable references. In our new scheme, variables live on the stack, so +code generating a reference to them actually needs to produce a load +from the stack slot: + +.. code-block:: c++ + + Value *VariableExprAST::Codegen() { + // Look this variable up in the function. + Value *V = NamedValues[Name]; + if (V == 0) return ErrorV("Unknown variable name"); + + // Load the value. + return Builder.CreateLoad(V, Name.c_str()); + } + +As you can see, this is pretty straightforward. Now we need to update +the things that define the variables to set up the alloca. We'll start +with ``ForExprAST::Codegen`` (see the `full code listing <#code>`_ for +the unabridged code): + +.. code-block:: c++ + + Function *TheFunction = Builder.GetInsertBlock()->getParent(); + + // Create an alloca for the variable in the entry block. + AllocaInst *Alloca = CreateEntryBlockAlloca(TheFunction, VarName); + + // Emit the start code first, without 'variable' in scope. + Value *StartVal = Start->Codegen(); + if (StartVal == 0) return 0; + + // Store the value into the alloca. + Builder.CreateStore(StartVal, Alloca); + ... + + // Compute the end condition. + Value *EndCond = End->Codegen(); + if (EndCond == 0) return EndCond; + + // Reload, increment, and restore the alloca. This handles the case where + // the body of the loop mutates the variable. + Value *CurVar = Builder.CreateLoad(Alloca); + Value *NextVar = Builder.CreateFAdd(CurVar, StepVal, "nextvar"); + Builder.CreateStore(NextVar, Alloca); + ... + +This code is virtually identical to the code `before we allowed mutable +variables <LangImpl5.html#forcodegen>`_. The big difference is that we +no longer have to construct a PHI node, and we use load/store to access +the variable as needed. + +To support mutable argument variables, we need to also make allocas for +them. The code for this is also pretty simple: + +.. code-block:: c++ + + /// CreateArgumentAllocas - Create an alloca for each argument and register the + /// argument in the symbol table so that references to it will succeed. + void PrototypeAST::CreateArgumentAllocas(Function *F) { + Function::arg_iterator AI = F->arg_begin(); + for (unsigned Idx = 0, e = Args.size(); Idx != e; ++Idx, ++AI) { + // Create an alloca for this variable. + AllocaInst *Alloca = CreateEntryBlockAlloca(F, Args[Idx]); + + // Store the initial value into the alloca. + Builder.CreateStore(AI, Alloca); + + // Add arguments to variable symbol table. + NamedValues[Args[Idx]] = Alloca; + } + } + +For each argument, we make an alloca, store the input value to the +function into the alloca, and register the alloca as the memory location +for the argument. This method gets invoked by ``FunctionAST::Codegen`` +right after it sets up the entry block for the function. + +The final missing piece is adding the mem2reg pass, which allows us to +get good codegen once again: + +.. code-block:: c++ + + // Set up the optimizer pipeline. Start with registering info about how the + // target lays out data structures. + OurFPM.add(new DataLayout(*TheExecutionEngine->getDataLayout())); + // Promote allocas to registers. + OurFPM.add(createPromoteMemoryToRegisterPass()); + // Do simple "peephole" optimizations and bit-twiddling optzns. + OurFPM.add(createInstructionCombiningPass()); + // Reassociate expressions. + OurFPM.add(createReassociatePass()); + +It is interesting to see what the code looks like before and after the +mem2reg optimization runs. For example, this is the before/after code +for our recursive fib function. Before the optimization: + +.. code-block:: llvm + + define double @fib(double %x) { + entry: + %x1 = alloca double + store double %x, double* %x1 + %x2 = load double* %x1 + %cmptmp = fcmp ult double %x2, 3.000000e+00 + %booltmp = uitofp i1 %cmptmp to double + %ifcond = fcmp one double %booltmp, 0.000000e+00 + br i1 %ifcond, label %then, label %else + + then: ; preds = %entry + br label %ifcont + + else: ; preds = %entry + %x3 = load double* %x1 + %subtmp = fsub double %x3, 1.000000e+00 + %calltmp = call double @fib(double %subtmp) + %x4 = load double* %x1 + %subtmp5 = fsub double %x4, 2.000000e+00 + %calltmp6 = call double @fib(double %subtmp5) + %addtmp = fadd double %calltmp, %calltmp6 + br label %ifcont + + ifcont: ; preds = %else, %then + %iftmp = phi double [ 1.000000e+00, %then ], [ %addtmp, %else ] + ret double %iftmp + } + +Here there is only one variable (x, the input argument) but you can +still see the extremely simple-minded code generation strategy we are +using. In the entry block, an alloca is created, and the initial input +value is stored into it. Each reference to the variable does a reload +from the stack. Also, note that we didn't modify the if/then/else +expression, so it still inserts a PHI node. While we could make an +alloca for it, it is actually easier to create a PHI node for it, so we +still just make the PHI. + +Here is the code after the mem2reg pass runs: + +.. code-block:: llvm + + define double @fib(double %x) { + entry: + %cmptmp = fcmp ult double %x, 3.000000e+00 + %booltmp = uitofp i1 %cmptmp to double + %ifcond = fcmp one double %booltmp, 0.000000e+00 + br i1 %ifcond, label %then, label %else + + then: + br label %ifcont + + else: + %subtmp = fsub double %x, 1.000000e+00 + %calltmp = call double @fib(double %subtmp) + %subtmp5 = fsub double %x, 2.000000e+00 + %calltmp6 = call double @fib(double %subtmp5) + %addtmp = fadd double %calltmp, %calltmp6 + br label %ifcont + + ifcont: ; preds = %else, %then + %iftmp = phi double [ 1.000000e+00, %then ], [ %addtmp, %else ] + ret double %iftmp + } + +This is a trivial case for mem2reg, since there are no redefinitions of +the variable. The point of showing this is to calm your tension about +inserting such blatent inefficiencies :). + +After the rest of the optimizers run, we get: + +.. code-block:: llvm + + define double @fib(double %x) { + entry: + %cmptmp = fcmp ult double %x, 3.000000e+00 + %booltmp = uitofp i1 %cmptmp to double + %ifcond = fcmp ueq double %booltmp, 0.000000e+00 + br i1 %ifcond, label %else, label %ifcont + + else: + %subtmp = fsub double %x, 1.000000e+00 + %calltmp = call double @fib(double %subtmp) + %subtmp5 = fsub double %x, 2.000000e+00 + %calltmp6 = call double @fib(double %subtmp5) + %addtmp = fadd double %calltmp, %calltmp6 + ret double %addtmp + + ifcont: + ret double 1.000000e+00 + } + +Here we see that the simplifycfg pass decided to clone the return +instruction into the end of the 'else' block. This allowed it to +eliminate some branches and the PHI node. + +Now that all symbol table references are updated to use stack variables, +we'll add the assignment operator. + +New Assignment Operator +======================= + +With our current framework, adding a new assignment operator is really +simple. We will parse it just like any other binary operator, but handle +it internally (instead of allowing the user to define it). The first +step is to set a precedence: + +.. code-block:: c++ + + int main() { + // Install standard binary operators. + // 1 is lowest precedence. + BinopPrecedence['='] = 2; + BinopPrecedence['<'] = 10; + BinopPrecedence['+'] = 20; + BinopPrecedence['-'] = 20; + +Now that the parser knows the precedence of the binary operator, it +takes care of all the parsing and AST generation. We just need to +implement codegen for the assignment operator. This looks like: + +.. code-block:: c++ + + Value *BinaryExprAST::Codegen() { + // Special case '=' because we don't want to emit the LHS as an expression. + if (Op == '=') { + // Assignment requires the LHS to be an identifier. + VariableExprAST *LHSE = dynamic_cast<VariableExprAST*>(LHS); + if (!LHSE) + return ErrorV("destination of '=' must be a variable"); + +Unlike the rest of the binary operators, our assignment operator doesn't +follow the "emit LHS, emit RHS, do computation" model. As such, it is +handled as a special case before the other binary operators are handled. +The other strange thing is that it requires the LHS to be a variable. It +is invalid to have "(x+1) = expr" - only things like "x = expr" are +allowed. + +.. code-block:: c++ + + // Codegen the RHS. + Value *Val = RHS->Codegen(); + if (Val == 0) return 0; + + // Look up the name. + Value *Variable = NamedValues[LHSE->getName()]; + if (Variable == 0) return ErrorV("Unknown variable name"); + + Builder.CreateStore(Val, Variable); + return Val; + } + ... + +Once we have the variable, codegen'ing the assignment is +straightforward: we emit the RHS of the assignment, create a store, and +return the computed value. Returning a value allows for chained +assignments like "X = (Y = Z)". + +Now that we have an assignment operator, we can mutate loop variables +and arguments. For example, we can now run code like this: + +:: + + # Function to print a double. + extern printd(x); + + # Define ':' for sequencing: as a low-precedence operator that ignores operands + # and just returns the RHS. + def binary : 1 (x y) y; + + def test(x) + printd(x) : + x = 4 : + printd(x); + + test(123); + +When run, this example prints "123" and then "4", showing that we did +actually mutate the value! Okay, we have now officially implemented our +goal: getting this to work requires SSA construction in the general +case. However, to be really useful, we want the ability to define our +own local variables, lets add this next! + +User-defined Local Variables +============================ + +Adding var/in is just like any other other extensions we made to +Kaleidoscope: we extend the lexer, the parser, the AST and the code +generator. The first step for adding our new 'var/in' construct is to +extend the lexer. As before, this is pretty trivial, the code looks like +this: + +.. code-block:: c++ + + enum Token { + ... + // var definition + tok_var = -13 + ... + } + ... + static int gettok() { + ... + if (IdentifierStr == "in") return tok_in; + if (IdentifierStr == "binary") return tok_binary; + if (IdentifierStr == "unary") return tok_unary; + if (IdentifierStr == "var") return tok_var; + return tok_identifier; + ... + +The next step is to define the AST node that we will construct. For +var/in, it looks like this: + +.. code-block:: c++ + + /// VarExprAST - Expression class for var/in + class VarExprAST : public ExprAST { + std::vector<std::pair<std::string, ExprAST*> > VarNames; + ExprAST *Body; + public: + VarExprAST(const std::vector<std::pair<std::string, ExprAST*> > &varnames, + ExprAST *body) + : VarNames(varnames), Body(body) {} + + virtual Value *Codegen(); + }; + +var/in allows a list of names to be defined all at once, and each name +can optionally have an initializer value. As such, we capture this +information in the VarNames vector. Also, var/in has a body, this body +is allowed to access the variables defined by the var/in. + +With this in place, we can define the parser pieces. The first thing we +do is add it as a primary expression: + +.. code-block:: c++ + + /// primary + /// ::= identifierexpr + /// ::= numberexpr + /// ::= parenexpr + /// ::= ifexpr + /// ::= forexpr + /// ::= varexpr + static ExprAST *ParsePrimary() { + switch (CurTok) { + default: return Error("unknown token when expecting an expression"); + case tok_identifier: return ParseIdentifierExpr(); + case tok_number: return ParseNumberExpr(); + case '(': return ParseParenExpr(); + case tok_if: return ParseIfExpr(); + case tok_for: return ParseForExpr(); + case tok_var: return ParseVarExpr(); + } + } + +Next we define ParseVarExpr: + +.. code-block:: c++ + + /// varexpr ::= 'var' identifier ('=' expression)? + // (',' identifier ('=' expression)?)* 'in' expression + static ExprAST *ParseVarExpr() { + getNextToken(); // eat the var. + + std::vector<std::pair<std::string, ExprAST*> > VarNames; + + // At least one variable name is required. + if (CurTok != tok_identifier) + return Error("expected identifier after var"); + +The first part of this code parses the list of identifier/expr pairs +into the local ``VarNames`` vector. + +.. code-block:: c++ + + while (1) { + std::string Name = IdentifierStr; + getNextToken(); // eat identifier. + + // Read the optional initializer. + ExprAST *Init = 0; + if (CurTok == '=') { + getNextToken(); // eat the '='. + + Init = ParseExpression(); + if (Init == 0) return 0; + } + + VarNames.push_back(std::make_pair(Name, Init)); + + // End of var list, exit loop. + if (CurTok != ',') break; + getNextToken(); // eat the ','. + + if (CurTok != tok_identifier) + return Error("expected identifier list after var"); + } + +Once all the variables are parsed, we then parse the body and create the +AST node: + +.. code-block:: c++ + + // At this point, we have to have 'in'. + if (CurTok != tok_in) + return Error("expected 'in' keyword after 'var'"); + getNextToken(); // eat 'in'. + + ExprAST *Body = ParseExpression(); + if (Body == 0) return 0; + + return new VarExprAST(VarNames, Body); + } + +Now that we can parse and represent the code, we need to support +emission of LLVM IR for it. This code starts out with: + +.. code-block:: c++ + + Value *VarExprAST::Codegen() { + std::vector<AllocaInst *> OldBindings; + + Function *TheFunction = Builder.GetInsertBlock()->getParent(); + + // Register all variables and emit their initializer. + for (unsigned i = 0, e = VarNames.size(); i != e; ++i) { + const std::string &VarName = VarNames[i].first; + ExprAST *Init = VarNames[i].second; + +Basically it loops over all the variables, installing them one at a +time. For each variable we put into the symbol table, we remember the +previous value that we replace in OldBindings. + +.. code-block:: c++ + + // Emit the initializer before adding the variable to scope, this prevents + // the initializer from referencing the variable itself, and permits stuff + // like this: + // var a = 1 in + // var a = a in ... # refers to outer 'a'. + Value *InitVal; + if (Init) { + InitVal = Init->Codegen(); + if (InitVal == 0) return 0; + } else { // If not specified, use 0.0. + InitVal = ConstantFP::get(getGlobalContext(), APFloat(0.0)); + } + + AllocaInst *Alloca = CreateEntryBlockAlloca(TheFunction, VarName); + Builder.CreateStore(InitVal, Alloca); + + // Remember the old variable binding so that we can restore the binding when + // we unrecurse. + OldBindings.push_back(NamedValues[VarName]); + + // Remember this binding. + NamedValues[VarName] = Alloca; + } + +There are more comments here than code. The basic idea is that we emit +the initializer, create the alloca, then update the symbol table to +point to it. Once all the variables are installed in the symbol table, +we evaluate the body of the var/in expression: + +.. code-block:: c++ + + // Codegen the body, now that all vars are in scope. + Value *BodyVal = Body->Codegen(); + if (BodyVal == 0) return 0; + +Finally, before returning, we restore the previous variable bindings: + +.. code-block:: c++ + + // Pop all our variables from scope. + for (unsigned i = 0, e = VarNames.size(); i != e; ++i) + NamedValues[VarNames[i].first] = OldBindings[i]; + + // Return the body computation. + return BodyVal; + } + +The end result of all of this is that we get properly scoped variable +definitions, and we even (trivially) allow mutation of them :). + +With this, we completed what we set out to do. Our nice iterative fib +example from the intro compiles and runs just fine. The mem2reg pass +optimizes all of our stack variables into SSA registers, inserting PHI +nodes where needed, and our front-end remains simple: no "iterated +dominance frontier" computation anywhere in sight. + +Full Code Listing +================= + +Here is the complete code listing for our running example, enhanced with +mutable variables and var/in support. To build this example, use: + +.. code-block:: bash + + # Compile + clang++ -g toy.cpp `llvm-config --cppflags --ldflags --libs core jit native` -O3 -o toy + # Run + ./toy + +Here is the code: + +.. code-block:: c++ + + #include "llvm/DerivedTypes.h" + #include "llvm/ExecutionEngine/ExecutionEngine.h" + #include "llvm/ExecutionEngine/JIT.h" + #include "llvm/IRBuilder.h" + #include "llvm/LLVMContext.h" + #include "llvm/Module.h" + #include "llvm/PassManager.h" + #include "llvm/Analysis/Verifier.h" + #include "llvm/Analysis/Passes.h" + #include "llvm/DataLayout.h" + #include "llvm/Transforms/Scalar.h" + #include "llvm/Support/TargetSelect.h" + #include <cstdio> + #include <string> + #include <map> + #include <vector> + using namespace llvm; + + //===----------------------------------------------------------------------===// + // Lexer + //===----------------------------------------------------------------------===// + + // The lexer returns tokens [0-255] if it is an unknown character, otherwise one + // of these for known things. + enum Token { + tok_eof = -1, + + // commands + tok_def = -2, tok_extern = -3, + + // primary + tok_identifier = -4, tok_number = -5, + + // control + tok_if = -6, tok_then = -7, tok_else = -8, + tok_for = -9, tok_in = -10, + + // operators + tok_binary = -11, tok_unary = -12, + + // var definition + tok_var = -13 + }; + + static std::string IdentifierStr; // Filled in if tok_identifier + static double NumVal; // Filled in if tok_number + + /// gettok - Return the next token from standard input. + static int gettok() { + static int LastChar = ' '; + + // Skip any whitespace. + while (isspace(LastChar)) + LastChar = getchar(); + + if (isalpha(LastChar)) { // identifier: [a-zA-Z][a-zA-Z0-9]* + IdentifierStr = LastChar; + while (isalnum((LastChar = getchar()))) + IdentifierStr += LastChar; + + if (IdentifierStr == "def") return tok_def; + if (IdentifierStr == "extern") return tok_extern; + if (IdentifierStr == "if") return tok_if; + if (IdentifierStr == "then") return tok_then; + if (IdentifierStr == "else") return tok_else; + if (IdentifierStr == "for") return tok_for; + if (IdentifierStr == "in") return tok_in; + if (IdentifierStr == "binary") return tok_binary; + if (IdentifierStr == "unary") return tok_unary; + if (IdentifierStr == "var") return tok_var; + return tok_identifier; + } + + if (isdigit(LastChar) || LastChar == '.') { // Number: [0-9.]+ + std::string NumStr; + do { + NumStr += LastChar; + LastChar = getchar(); + } while (isdigit(LastChar) || LastChar == '.'); + + NumVal = strtod(NumStr.c_str(), 0); + return tok_number; + } + + if (LastChar == '#') { + // Comment until end of line. + do LastChar = getchar(); + while (LastChar != EOF && LastChar != '\n' && LastChar != '\r'); + + if (LastChar != EOF) + return gettok(); + } + + // Check for end of file. Don't eat the EOF. + if (LastChar == EOF) + return tok_eof; + + // Otherwise, just return the character as its ascii value. + int ThisChar = LastChar; + LastChar = getchar(); + return ThisChar; + } + + //===----------------------------------------------------------------------===// + // Abstract Syntax Tree (aka Parse Tree) + //===----------------------------------------------------------------------===// + + /// ExprAST - Base class for all expression nodes. + class ExprAST { + public: + virtual ~ExprAST() {} + virtual Value *Codegen() = 0; + }; + + /// NumberExprAST - Expression class for numeric literals like "1.0". + class NumberExprAST : public ExprAST { + double Val; + public: + NumberExprAST(double val) : Val(val) {} + virtual Value *Codegen(); + }; + + /// VariableExprAST - Expression class for referencing a variable, like "a". + class VariableExprAST : public ExprAST { + std::string Name; + public: + VariableExprAST(const std::string &name) : Name(name) {} + const std::string &getName() const { return Name; } + virtual Value *Codegen(); + }; + + /// UnaryExprAST - Expression class for a unary operator. + class UnaryExprAST : public ExprAST { + char Opcode; + ExprAST *Operand; + public: + UnaryExprAST(char opcode, ExprAST *operand) + : Opcode(opcode), Operand(operand) {} + virtual Value *Codegen(); + }; + + /// BinaryExprAST - Expression class for a binary operator. + class BinaryExprAST : public ExprAST { + char Op; + ExprAST *LHS, *RHS; + public: + BinaryExprAST(char op, ExprAST *lhs, ExprAST *rhs) + : Op(op), LHS(lhs), RHS(rhs) {} + virtual Value *Codegen(); + }; + + /// CallExprAST - Expression class for function calls. + class CallExprAST : public ExprAST { + std::string Callee; + std::vector<ExprAST*> Args; + public: + CallExprAST(const std::string &callee, std::vector<ExprAST*> &args) + : Callee(callee), Args(args) {} + virtual Value *Codegen |