Summary:
Previously, the LLVM semantics could be stuck where the LLAIR semantics
was not yet stuck, but would become stuck (at the same place) after
taking a step. This was due to LLVM using the traditional definition of
stuck states: any state from which there are no transitions. However,
LLAIR cannot do that because it might get stuck in the middle of a block
that contains several visible stores. We don't want to consider the
whole block stuck, nor can we finish it. Thus, the LLAIR definition of
stuckness is when the state has the stuck flag set which happens when
stopping in the middle of a block after encountering a stuck
instruction. Now LLVM takes the same approach.
Reviewed By: jberdine
Differential Revision: D17855085
fbshipit-source-id: a094d25d5
Summary:
Add an argument to the Exit instruction. Update the LLVM semantics to
execute the Exit instruction and store the result in an "exited"
component of the state. (Previously it just noticed that it was stuck
about to do an Exit.)
With exiting treated uniformly, now in the proof that for every LLVM
trace, there is a llair trace that simulates it, all of the cheats
except for 1 are just cases that I haven't got to yet. However, the last
cheat is for the situation where the LLVM program gets stuck and the
llair program doesn't. For example, the following two line LLVM program
gets stuck because r2 is not assigned (ignoring for the moment the static
restriction that LLVM is in SSA form).
r1 := r2
Exit(0)
The compilation to llair omits the assignment and so we get a llair
program that doesn't get stuck:
Exit(0)
The key question is whether the static restrictions are sufficient to
ensure that no expression that might be omitted can get stuck.
Reviewed By: jberdine
Differential Revision: D17737589
fbshipit-source-id: bc6c01a1b
Summary:
Since the correcteness of the mapping from LLVM to llair depends on
LLVM being SSA, we need to formalise what that means. We also prove that
the domination relation is a strict partial order, which will probably
be helpful when reasoning about the translation.
Reviewed By: jberdine
Differential Revision: D17631456
fbshipit-source-id: a00eb3f87
Summary:
The LLVM semantics and translation was not consistently treating the
1-bit word value condition as signed or unsigned.
Reviewed By: jberdine
Differential Revision: D17605766
fbshipit-source-id: 77edf63b7
Summary:
Previously the LLVM semantics did the phi instructions at the head of a
block as part of executing the branch into that block. This looked a bit
weird, but had the advantage that the semantics knew which block was
being jumped from, which is necessary to run the phi instructions.
However, it meant that the rules for doing phi instructions would need
to show up with each branching construct. It was also annoying for the
LLVM->llair proof, since the phis are removed and their effect happens as
a distinct step from the branch.
Here we add a distinct Phi_ip instruction pointer to indicate that the
phi instructions at the start of the block should execute next, and then
be incremented to the usual numeric instruction pointer that points to
the non-phi instructions. The Phi_ip contains the identity of the
previous block.
Reviewed By: jberdine
Differential Revision: D17452416
fbshipit-source-id: 78fef7cca
Summary:
Give the llair semantics observable side effects (writes to global
variables) and a semantic function mirroring the LLVM semantics. Start
sketching out the LLVM/llair translation equivalence proof in a top-down
way from the obvious statement of equality of the semantics.
Reviewed By: jberdine
Differential Revision: D17399654
fbshipit-source-id: 2170678a8
Summary:
The simple LLVM semantics steps one instruction at a time, but the
generated llair does whole blocks at a time, since many individual LLVM
instructions can become a single llair expression. We add a bigger-step
LLVM semantics that does whole blocks at a time (except that it also
stops at function calls, since those end blocks in llair). The steps in
this bigger-step semantics should be at the same granularity as the
llair steps, making it easier to verify the translation.
We add a notion of observation to the LLVM semantics (right now, just
global variable writes) and use that to define two top-level semantic
functions, which we prove to be equivalent.
Reviewed By: jberdine
Differential Revision: D17396016
fbshipit-source-id: ee632fb92
Summary:
This includes a few changes and corrections to the semantics, to support
the translation. This initial attempt to reason about LLVM -> llair
showed three things that needed repair in the semantics, in addition to
various bugs. We address them as follows.
Refactor llair semantics to have only a single kind of flat value:
integers that fit into specified bit widths. Operations on size values
(e.g., offsets, indices and the like) can just take an integer and
ignore its number of bits. Pointers can just be considered integers that
fit into a certain size given by the constant pointer_size. Later on we
can consider making this a parameter to the model.
Change the generic memory model interface to use numbers rather than
words as the generic encoding of a large value. This makes it more
useful for llair where words are not used.
Pay more careful attention to signed/unsigned issues. Neither LLVM nor
llair have a concept of signed vs unsigned value. Instead individual
operations interpret bit patterns in various ways, some of which are
ambiguous in the LLVM manual. For example, since getelementpointer's
indices are explicitly said to be interpreted as signed 2's complement,
we should probably do the same for insertvalue and extractvalue. However
it is not clear how the argument to alloca is to be interpreted. For now
we assume signed.
Reviewed By: jberdine
Differential Revision: D17164133
fbshipit-source-id: 31a8af635
Summary:
LLVM and llair have similar memory models, and we don't want to
duplicate any definitions or theorems. This adds a new memory model
theory which should be understandable in its own right. A heap is a
mapping from addresses to bytes, alongside a set of valid addresses, and
intervals that have been allocated already. Primitives are defined for
allocating and de-allocating as well as reading and writing chuncks of
bytes.
There is also a generic type of structured values, and functions for
converting them to/from byte arrays.
Reviewed By: jberdine
Differential Revision: D17074470
fbshipit-source-id: bdab6089f
Scott Owens