Archive
Licensing to decide the result of gcc vs llvm?
I was not surprised to hear today that Nvidia are halting development of their in-house C/C++ compiler and switching to one of the Open Source compilers. It is a lot cheaper to have one or two people looking after a company’s interests in a compiler developed by somebody else than having an in-house development group. It will be interesting to see how much longer Intel continues to fund their in-house compiler.
Nvidia chose llvm and gave a variety of technical reasons why this was the best choice over gcc.
One advantage (from Nvidia’s point of view) not mentioned is that llvm is licensed under a BSD style agreement. This means Nvidia don’t have to release the source code of any modifications or additions they make (they said these will be kept closed source); gcc is licensed under the GNU General Public License which requires source to be released. Arch rivals AMD (well, the ATI bit of AMD that does graphics hardware) also promote llvm, and I’m sure Nvidia does not want to help them in any way.
The licensing difference between gcc and llvm has the potential to make a big difference to the finances of both development teams.
My understanding of gcc funding is that most of it comes from back-end work (i.e., a company pays to have gcc work or do a better job on some [I imagine their] processor). Given a choice, would these companies rather release the source they paid to have written/modified or keep it closed? Some probably don’t care and hope that by making the source available others will help find and fix problems (i.e., there is a benefit to making it available), on the other hand companies introducing processors with fancy new features will want to minimise any technology that competitors can get for free.
In the years to come, it is possible that gcc will loose a significant amount of this back-end income to llvm because of licensing.
PhD projects are the life-blood of new compiler optimization techniques and for many years source code from them has often ended up as the experimental version of a new optimization phase of gcc. Many students are firm believers in making source freely available and shy away from being involved in non-GPL projects. Will this deter them from using llvm in their research (there may be a growing trend favoring llvm over gcc in research, or the llvm people may be better than the gcc folk at marketing {not hard})?
If llvm does not get the new fancy optimizations for ‘free’ they are going to have to spend money doing the implementing themselves or have their performance slowly fall behind that of gcc. Will this cost be more or less than the additional income from closed source customers?
We are unlikely to know the impact that licensing has on the fortunes of both compilers until the end of this decade. Perhaps designing and building a new processor will not be economically worthwhile in 10 years, perhaps all the worthwhile optimizations will be done. We will have to wait and see.
Update 4 Jan 2012: Video (235M) of talk on status of effort to make llvm the default compiler in FreeBSD at LLVM 2011 Developer’s meeting.
Minimum information needed for writing a code generator
If a compiler writer is faced with writing a back-end for an undocumented processor, what is the minimum amount of information that needs to be reverse engineered?
It is possible to implement a universal computer using a cpu that has a single instruction, subtract-and-branch-if-lessthan-or-equal-to-zero. This is all very well, but processors based on using a single instruction are a bit thin on the ground and the processor to hand is likely to support a larger number of simpler instructions.
A subtract-and-branch-if-lessthan-or-equal-to-zero instruction could be implemented on a register based machine using the appropriate sequence of load-from-memory, subtract-two-registers, store-register-to-memory and jump-if-subtract-lessthan-or-equal instructions. Information about other instructions, such as add and multiply, would be useful for code optimization. (The Turing machine model of computation is sufficiently far removed from how most programs and computers operate that it is not considered further.)
Are we done? In theory yes, in practice no. A couple pf practical problems have been glossed over; how do source literals (e.g., "Hello World") initially get written to storage, where does the storage used by the program come from and what is the file format of an executable?
Literals that are not created using an instruction (most processors have instructions for loading an integer constant into a register) are written to a part of the executable file that is read into storage by the loader on program startup. All well and good if we know enough about the format of an executable file to be able to correct generate this information and can get the operating system to put in the desired storage location. Otherwise we have to figure out some other solution.
If we know two storage locations containing values that differ by one a sequence of instructions could subtract one value from the other to eventually obtain any desired value. This bootstrap process would speed up as a wider range of know value/location pairs was built up.
How do we go about obtaining a chunk of storage? An executable file usually contains information on the initial amount of storage needed by a program when it is loaded. Calls to the heap manager are another way of obtaining storage. Again we need to know where to write the appropriate information in the executable file.
What minimum amount of storage might be expected to be available? A program executing within a stack/heap based memory model has a default amount of storage allocated for the stack (a minimum of 16k I believe under Mac OS X or iPhone OS). A program could treat the stack as its storage. Ideally what we need is the ability to access storage via an offset from the stack pointer, at worse we would have to adjust the stack pointer to the appropriate offset, pop the value into a register and then reset the stack pointer; storing would involve a push.
Having performed some calculation we probably want to communicate one or more values to the outside world. A call to a library routine, such as printf, needs information on the parameter passing conventions (e.g., which parameters get stored in which registers or have storage allocated for them {a function returning a structure type usually has the necessary storage allocated by the calling function with the address passed as an extra parameter}) and the location of any return value. If ABI information is not available a bit of lateral thinking might be needed to come up with an alternative output method.
I have not said anything about making use of signals and exception handling. These are hard enough to get right when documentation is available. The Turing machine theory folk usually skip over these real-world issues and I will join them for the time being.
Criteria for knowing a language
What does it mean for somebody to claim to know a computer language? In the commercial world it means the person is claiming to be capable of fluently (i.e., only using knowledge contained in their head and without having to unduly ponder) reading, and writing code in some generally accepted style applicable to that language. The academic world generally sets a much lower standard of competence (perhaps because most of its inhabitants leave before any significant expertise is acquired). If I had a penny for every recent graduate who claimed to know a language and was incapable of writing a program that read in a list of integers and printed their sum (I know companies that set tougher problems, but they do not seem to have higher failure rates), I would be a rich man.
One experiment asked 21 postgraduate and academic staff which of the following individuals they would regard as knowing Java:
The results were:
_ NO YES
A 21 0
B 18 3
C 16 5
D 8 13
E 0 21
These answers reflect the environment from which the subjects were drawn. When I wrote compilers for a living, I did not consider that anybody knew a language unless they had written a compiler for it, a point of view echoed by other compiler writers I knew.
I’m not sure that commercial developers would be happy with answer (E), in fact they could probably expand (E) into five separate questions that tested the degree to which a person was able to combine various elements of the language to create a meaningful whole. In the commercial world, stage (E) is where people are expected to start.
The criteria used to decide whether somebody knows a language depends on which group of people you talk to; academics, professional developers and compiler writers each have their own in-group standards. In a sense the question is irrelevant, a small amount of language knowledge applied well can be used to do a reasonable job of creating a program for most applications.
Recent Comments