github-actions[bot] commented on Issue #2103:
Subscribe to Label Action
cc @bnjbvr
<details>
This issue or pull request has been labeled: "cranelift"Thus the following users have been cc'd because of the following labels:
- bnjbvr: cranelift
To subscribe or unsubscribe from this label, edit the <code>.github/subscribe-to-label.json</code> configuration file.
Learn more.
</details>
cfallin commented on Issue #2103:
Wow -- this is an excellent surprise to start my day with. First of all, thanks, @jmkrauz, for putting in all of this work!
I'll review this in the next few days; I expect it will take a bit of time. One high-level comment regarding the register-overlap issue: we've thought about (and need to solve) it for other architectures too, e.g. x86-32, so I expect we'll have a better answer eventually. For now, a stopgap solution (for correctness) might be to simply allocate pairs as the fundamental unit (i.e.
D
regs), and just burn an extra 32-bit register for eachf32
, and punt on 128-bit vector support for now. Not ideal but it will get us to basic completeness at least. @julian-seward1 might have more thoughts on this?
cfallin commented on Issue #2103:
@jmkrauz, I just wanted to comment here to say first of all, we haven't forgotten this -- we're working on some framework improvements that should make this backend a little bit nicer. Specifically:
In recent PRs I've refactored the ABI code to provide a higher-level abstraction when an ABI follows normal-ish conventions; this reduces a lot of the duplicated code between aarch64 and x64, at least. Would you be able to refactor the ABI support in this patch to use that framework (
ABIMachineImpl
trait etc)? There are a few places where it assumes 64-bitness but we can work through fixing those easily enough...I'm currently working out isel framework improvements to allow one SSA value to live in multiple registers; this will permit us to support
i64
on 32-bit targets (and lateri128
everywhere). I think we probably wanti64
support before this is merged, but we can see how that goes as the framework comes together.I also don't want to hold this in limbo forever; at some point (@julian-seward1 and @bnjbvr may have opinions as well) we can consider merging and gating behind an experimental feature flag until we get this up to Wasm-MVP (i32/i64/f32/f64 support) level.
Thanks again and hopefully this will come together sooner rather than later :-)
jmkrauz commented on Issue #2103:
That's good news :)
I will work on this after the weekend.
bnjbvr commented on Issue #2103:
Agreed that we could review and merge this behind a flag, or just letting know that support for arm32 is experimental; we've done this for other backends, and we can work incrementally on supporting more opcodes etc.
cfallin commented on Issue #2103:
Hi @jmkrauz, it looks like you've refactored to use the common
abi_impl
machinery (thanks!). I discussed this PR briefly today with a few others and we agree that it might be best to merge now, given that I haven't resolved the multiple-register-value question yet (which this would need fori64
values). (Sorry about that -- a lot on my plate lately!) If that's alright with you, of course; does this seem OK or do you have plans to refine the PR more first?One thing I think we should do, however, is to put the new backend behind a feature flag until it implements Wasm MVP; otherwise someone might try to build wasmtime on arm32 and hit confusing panics. Perhaps just
#[cfg(feature = "arm32")]
on the mainmod arm32
statement incranelift/codegen/src/isa/mod.rs
?
jmkrauz commented on Issue #2103:
Merging now is absolutely fine with me.
I have added additional commit in which I put ARM backend behindexperimental_arm32
feature flag. In order to avoid failing arm32 filetests withexperimental_arm32
disabled, I have also added small check incranelift/filetests/src/runone.rs
.
cfallin commented on Issue #2103:
Excellent, thanks! Looking forward to seeing this become a full backend!
Last updated: Dec 23 2024 at 12:05 UTC