Skip to content
This repository

Register allocator and lexicals bug #262

Closed
jnthn opened this Issue April 06, 2011 · 4 comments

3 participants

Jonathan Worthington Andrew Whitworth Duke Leto
Jonathan Worthington
Collaborator
jnthn commented April 06, 2011

Code:

.sub ''
$P42 = new ['Integer']
.lex 'i', $P42
$P69 = new ['Integer']
.lex 'j', $P69
.lex 'foo', $P10
.lex 'bar', $P11
.lex 'baz', $P12
$P3 = new ['String']
.lex 'k', $P3

$P100 = new ['String']
$P100 = "oh no"
store_lex 'foo', $P100
$P101 = find_lex 'bar'
say $P101
.end

Should be a null PMC access, but prints "oh no". It looks like

.lex 'foo', $P0

isn't considered an instruction, but just saying "this lexical goes in this register". If that's the only mention of $P0, then there's no "first instruction". It builds a du-chain, then based on that throws away $P0 from the "needs allocation" list because it confuses it with an unused register (e.g. it thinks it got optimized out, which is not the case at all here).

This patch makes the issue go away:

diff --git a/compilers/imcc/reg_alloc.c b/compilers/imcc/reg_alloc.c
index de0f3e0..300216d 100644
--- a/compilers/imcc/reg_alloc.c
+++ b/compilers/imcc/reg_alloc.c
@@ -391,6 +391,9 @@ reg_sort_f(ARGIN(const void *a), ARGIN(const void *b))
     const SymReg * const ra = *(const SymReg * const *)a;
     const SymReg * const rb = *(const SymReg * const *)b;

+    if (!ra->first_ins || !rb->first_ins)
+        return 0;
+    
     if (ra->first_ins->index < rb->first_ins->index)
         return -1;

@@ -473,7 +476,7 @@ build_reglist(PARROT_INTERP, ARGMOD(IMC_Unit *unit))

     /* we might have unused symbols here, from optimizations */
     for (i = count = unused = 0; i < n_symbols; i++) {
-        if (!unit->reglist[i]->first_ins)
+        if (!unit->reglist[i]->first_ins && !(unit->reglist[i]->usage & U_LEXICAL))
             unused++;
         else if (i == count)
             count++;
@@ -716,7 +719,7 @@ vanilla_reg_alloc(PARROT_INTERP, ARGMOD(IMC_Unit *unit))
         SymReg *r;
         for (r = hsh->data[i]; r; r = r->next) {
             /* TODO Ignore non-volatiles */
-            if (REG_NEEDS_ALLOC(r) && r->use_count)
+            if (REG_NEEDS_ALLOC(r))
                 r->color = -1;
         }
     }
@@ -732,7 +735,7 @@ vanilla_reg_alloc(PARROT_INTERP, ARGMOD(IMC_Unit *unit))
             for (r = hsh->data[i]; r; r = r->next) {
                 if (r->set != reg_set)
                     continue;
-                if (REG_NEEDS_ALLOC(r) && (r->color == -1) && r->use_count) {
+                if (REG_NEEDS_ALLOC(r) && (r->color == -1)) {
                     if (set_contains(avail, first_reg))
                         first_reg = first_avail(interp, unit, reg_set, NULL);

But it's kinda hacky. OTOH, so is the register allocator as a whole, and this is blocking me on NQP, so provided we can be sure we don't make the quicksort of symbols to allocate unstable I'd be OK with something like this going in. Will leave it until tomorrow to see if anyone has any better ideas.

Originally http://trac.parrot.org/parrot/ticket/2087

Duke Leto
Owner
leto commented April 28, 2011

Is this still blocking you, Jonathan? If parrot fulltest and rakudo spectest pass with this patch, then we should apply it, barring horrible performance problems.

Andrew Whitworth
Owner

I just tried to apply this patch and it doesn't apply cleanly. After a quick visual inspection, it appears that most of this patch has already been applied (and the rest I either can't find or it isn't applied). Running the test program program provided does indeed fail with a null pmc access which, I think is what you said was expected.

@jnthn, Is this issue resolved? If so, can we close this ticket? Thanks.

Jonathan Worthington
Collaborator
jnthn commented May 08, 2012
Andrew Whitworth
Owner

Thanks @jnthn. I'm closing this ticket. Let us know if you find any other problems.

Andrew Whitworth Whiteknight closed this May 08, 2012
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Something went wrong with that request. Please try again.