Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Add a proposal for how to explicitly specify struct layouts #171

Open
wants to merge 5 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Open
Changes from 4 commits
Commits
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension

Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
203 changes: 203 additions & 0 deletions proposals/NNNN-explicit-layout-struct.md
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
@@ -0,0 +1,203 @@
<!-- {% raw %} -->

# Types with explicit layouts in DXIL and SPIR-V

* Proposal: [NNNN](NNNN-explicit-layout-struct.md)
* Author(s): [bogner](https://github.com/bogner)
* Status: **Design In Progress**

## Introduction

This introduces the `dx.Layout` and `spirv.Layout` target extension types,
which can be used to represent HLSL structures that need explicit layout
information in LLVM IR.

## Motivation

Some HLSL types have layout that isn't practical to derive from the module's
DataLayout. This includes all kinds of `cbuffer`, but especially those that use
`packoffset`, and also applies to structs that use the vulkan `[[vk::offset()]]
extension and possibly objects with specific alignment specified on subobjects.

We need to be able to represent these types in IR so that we can generate
correct code in the backends.

## Proposed solution

We should implement a target type that includes a struct type, total size, and
offsets for each member of the struct. This type can then be used in other
target types, such as CBuffer or StructuredBuffer definitions, or even in other
layout types. We need target types for DirectX and for SPIR-V, but the types
can and should mirror each other.

```
target("[dx|spirv].Layout", %struct_type, <size>, [offset...])
```

### Examples

In the examples below we generally use "dx.Layout", since the "spirv.Layout"
variants would be identical.

While these aren't necessarily needed for types that don't have explicit layout
rules, some examples of "standard" layout objects represented this way are
helpful:

```llvm
; struct simple1 {
; float x;
; float y;
; };
%__hlsl_simple1 = { i32, i32 }
target("dx.Layout", %__hlsl_simple1, 8, 0, 4)

; struct simple2 {
; float3 x;
; float y;
; };
%__hlsl_simple2 = { <3 x float>, float }
target("dx.Layout", %__hlsl_simple2, 16, 0, 12)

; struct nested {
; simple2 s2;
; simple1 s1;
; };
%__hlsl_nested = type { target("dx.Layout", %__hlsl_simple2, 16, 0, 12),
target("dx.Layout", %__hlsl_simple1, 8, 0, 4) }
target("dx.Layout", %__layout_nested, 24, 0, 16)
```

Objects whose layout differs in cbuffers than in structs:

```llvm
; struct array_struct {
; float x[4];
; float y;
; };
%__hlsl_array_struct = type { [4 x float], float }
target("dx.Layout", %__hlsl_array_struct, 20, 0, 16)

; cbuffer array_cbuf1 {
; float x[4];
; float y;
; };
target("dx.Layout", %__hlsl_array_struct, 56, 0, 52)

; cbuffer array_cbuf2 {
; array_struct s;
; };
target("dx.Layout", %__hlsl_array_struct, 56, 0, 52)

; struct nested2 {
; simple1 s1;
; simple2 s2;
; };
%__hlsl_nested2 = type { target("dx.Layout", %__hlsl_simple1, 8, 0, 4),
target("dx.Layout", %__hlsl_simple2, 16, 0, 12) }
target("dx.Layout", %__hlsl_nested2, 24, 0, 8)

; cbuffer nested_cbuf {
; simple1 s1;
; simple2 s2;
; };
target("dx.Layout", %__hlsl_nested2, 32, 0, 16)
```

Simple usage of packoffset:

```llvm
; cbuffer packoffset1 {
; float x : packoffset(c1.x);
; float y : packoffset(c2.y);
; };
target("dx.Layout", { i32, i32 }, 40, 16, 36)
```

packoffset that reorders fields:
> note: This does not currently work in DXC targeting SPIR-V.

```llvm
; cbuffer packoffset1 {
; float x : packoffset(c2.y);
; float y : packoffset(c1.x);
; };
target("dx.Layout", { i32, i32 }, 40, 36, 16)
```

Use of `[[vk::offset()]]`:

```llvm
; struct vkoffset1 {
; float2 a;
; [[vk::offset(8)]] float2 b;
; }
%__hlsl_vkoffset1 = { <2 x float>, <2 x float> }
target("spirv.Layout", %__hlsl_vkoffset1, 12, 0, 8)

; struct complex {
; float r;
; float i;
; };
; struct vkoffset2 {
; float2 a;
; [[vk::offset(8) complex b;
; }
%__hlsl_vkoffset2 = { <2 x float>, { float, float } }
target("spirv.Layout", %__hlsl_vkoffset1, 16, 0, 8)
```

## Open questions
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think there are other open question. How and when do you convert from the spirv.Layout or dx.Layout types to the type without the offset, and how could it interact with optimizations. Consider a structured buffer access like https://godbolt.org/z/z49rEWe58. I'm guessing this would change by replacing %struct.T with target("dx.Layout", 16, 0, 8) in the dx.RawBuffer type.

But we still have the question of what should the type of the store. How should the GEP look?

At first the store becomes:

  %2 = getelementptr inbounds nuw %struct.T, ptr %1, i32 0, i32 0
  store <2 x float> zeroinitializer, ptr %2, align 8
  %3 = getelementptr inbounds nuw %struct.T, ptr %1, i32 0, i32 1
  store <2 x float> splat (float 1.000000e+00), ptr %3, align 8

Note that the GEPs currently act on the struct type. We cannot change the GEPs to use the target extension type, because they are not allowed in GEPs. We could leave it implicit in some ways, but then the optimizer will assume it knows the layout and optimize accordingly:

  store <2 x float> zeroinitializer, ptr %2, align 8
  %3 = getelementptr inbounds nuw i8, ptr %2, i32 8
  store <2 x float> splat (float 1.000000e+00), ptr %3, align 8

Note that the opimizer modified the GEPs assuming it knows the offsets, even though it does not. How will you stop the optimizer from making assumptions about the layout of the struct, since we are representing it differently than llvm-ir usually expects?

This is less of a problem for cbuffers because we expect all access to the cbuffer to be through an intrinsic. There are a few options for structrued buffers:

I have a couple ideas on how to fix this, but only one that seems reasonable. Add an intrinsic that does a GEP of the dx.Layout type. This should hide everything from the optimizer.

We might also need an intrinsic that will do a memcpy between a type with a layout and a type that does not. Consider this example: https://godbolt.org/z/rh5dvd3E7. The memcpy copies the buffer contents to a variable for Foo which expects the struct without the layout information.

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The memcpy type intrinsic could correspond to OpCopyLogical in SPIR-V.

Copy link
Collaborator

@s-perron s-perron Feb 11, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

We could also expand the memcpy to copy the individual member one at a time, if we want to expose more to the optimizer. If we use an intrinsic, copy propagation will not work well.

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Would it be hard to allow target types into a GEP instruction? Because I feel this would be the best option vs adding another intrinsic:

  • we keep the GEP semantic, we are just saying "don't assume anything about the offset computation we do, let the backend handle it"

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Adding target type handling to the GEP instruction sounds nicer than needing a parallel set of operations, but that's definitely a larger change to LLVM. I'll add some notes to the open questions to capture these ideas - we'll need to answer this in some satisfying way in order to handle vk::offset properly.

Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

just to be pedantic, memcpy is a std::bit_cast/OpBitCast equivalent, the OpCopyLogical is more of a std::copy - a magical member by member logical copy

Y'all already know all that, its just that if the meaning memcpy starts getting overloaded like that it will lead to horrible head-scratching for outside/new contributors.

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

If we try to use a target type in the existing GEP instruction, I believe we will have many places we will have to add special cases. Any code that tries to optimize a GEP will have have a special case for the target extension type, even if it does nothing with it. That defeats the purpose of using an opaque type.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I've added some text to try to capture the questions here.

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It looks like I indeed missed an important aspect (Thanks DevSH)
If we use the target type in the GEP, then do a load/store, we are saying we do a memcpy. And if the layout is different, that would be wrong.
Maybe in such case we should emit an intrinsic to have carry the semantic of the OpCopyLogical, but not a memcpy ?

(This doesn't solve the issue of GEP being allowed to use target types still)


#### Arrays in CBuffers

Should we also add a `target("dx.CBufArray", <type>, <size>)` type, rather than
having the CBuffer logic need to be aware of special array element spacing
rules?

#### Decaying to non-target types

Operations like `resource.getpointer` can expose us to the contained type of a
resource, but should that give us an object of the underlying struct or the
target type? For the former, we would lose the layout, which is problematic.
For the latter, we need to talk about GEPs.

If we can have pointers of the target type, we'd either need to teach GEP to
handle these, which is a fairly wide-reaching change, or we would need a set of
GEP-like intrinsics.

This will need to be resolved in order to use these in StructuredBuffer and for
most real use-cases of `vk::offset`.

#### Copying in and out of the layout

How do we convert from the Layout types to types without the offsets? We'll
probably need an intrinsic that does a logical copy from the target type to a
compatible structure. See https://godbolt.org/z/rh5dvd3E7 for an example.

#### Struct layouts in Clang

Clang uses [ASTContext::getRecordLayout] to get the offset of a member when
needed. This proposal means that we will not update this class to be aware of
`vk::offset` and `packedoffset`. The goal of this proposal is to avoid adding
explicit padding members in the llvm:StructType as is done when handling
`alignof` in C++.

[ASTContext::getRecordLayout]: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/aa9e519b2423/clang/lib/AST/RecordLayoutBuilder.cpp#L3321

If we update `ASTContext::getRecordLayout`, then the explicit padding will be
added to the llvm::StructType. If we do not update it, then we will have to
consider every spot in Clang that calls it to see if we need to special case
the HLSL layout.

Currently known issue are: `offsetof` and `sizeof`. There is a lot more that
needs to be looked into in Clang. `ASTRecordLayout` is passed around to a lot
of functions, without the original type.

## Acknowledgments

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Another open issue. How will member functions work? This is related to how the this pointer will be handled in member functions.

This proposal is expanded from comments in [llvm/wg-hlsl#94] and follow up
conversations.

[llvm/wg-hlsl#94]: https://github.com/llvm/wg-hlsl/pull/94

<!-- {% endraw %} -->