Merge pull request #12 from cfallin/remove-old-backend

RFC to remove old Cranelift x86 backend.

Author: cfallin

accepted/remove-old-cranelift-backend.md

@@ -0,0 +1,160 @@
+# Summary
+[summary]: #summary
+
+This RFC proposes to remove the old x86-64 backend from Cranelift, and
+subsequently clean up various bits of the IR, other compiler data
+structures, and metaprogramming / codegen infrastructure that are only
+used by old-style backends. The RFC represents two main decision
+points: (i) whether it is now time to remove the old backend, and (ii)
+what else in the codebase we will now be able to remove as a
+consequence of this action.
+
+# Motivation
+[motivation]: #motivation
+
+In RFC #10, we proposed switching the default Cranelift backend to the
+new implementation, based on the `MachInst` framework. This new
+framework is also in use by the aarch64 backend, which was natively
+developed for the new APIs, and the recently-added s390x backend as
+well.
+
+To our knowledge, no significant consumers of Cranelift or Wasmtime
+are still relying on the old backend, and it has been included as a
+non-default option for two releases (0.27.x and 0.28.0) now. All
+ongoing development effort is targetted to the new backends.
+
+Alongside this, retaining the old backend as an option has several
+ongoing costs. First, because we have decided thus far to ensure it
+continues to pass tests, it imposes additional requirements on any new
+features we might add. While we have sometimes adopted a more
+fine-grained attitude of "this won't work on the old backend, and
+that's OK" (see: newer Wasm instructions), it is still a decision that
+has to be made in each case.
+
+Second, and more significantly, the old backend is the sole factor
+that keeps a number of other pieces of infrastructure alive. The core
+IR data structures contain some abstractions that are relevant only
+for the old backend, and this occasionally causes confusion. For
+example, someone looking for information on stackslots, or regalloc
+results, or code-layout information, will not find the information on
+the CLIF after compilation is done: the new backends produce the
+information in a separate IR (VCode). There is thus a cognitive
+overhead involved in maintaining "old and deprecated" vs. "new and
+supported" status in one's head for bits of the compiler, and a
+significant source of confusion for newcomers in particular.
+
+# Proposal
+[proposal]: #proposal
+
+We thus propose to (i) remove the old x86 backend, making the x64
+backend based on the `MachInst` framework the only supported option
+for x86-64 in the future; and (ii) then performing "dead-code
+elimination" as far as it will take us.
+
+## Part 1: Deciding to Remove the Old Backend
+
+The main question here is whether it is now the proper time to remove
+the backend. In #10, we suggested maintaining its functionality while
+"mak[ing] several releases with the new backend as default". We have
+now done so for two releases (0.27.x and 0.28). We can also directly
+consider several known users of Cranelift:
+
+* Wasmtime: transitioned to new backend in
+  bytecodealliance/wasmtime#2718. Feature flag to continue to use old
+  backend.
+
+* Lucet: transitioned to new backend in
+  bytecodealliance/lucet#646. Feature flag to continue to use old
+  backend.
+  
+* cg\_clif: transitioned to new backend in
+  bjorn3/rustc_codegen_cranelift#1127 and removed ability to use old
+  backend.
+  
+* Firefox/SpiderMonkey: most up-to-date integration (Baldrdash) used
+  new backend only.
+  
+* VeriWasm: updated to support new x64 backend in PlSysSec/veriwasm#2.
+
+Question 1: Are there any other known use-cases that remain on the old
+backend?
+
+Question 2: Is there any functionality in the old backend that we have
+not yet adequately replicated in the new backend?
+
+Question 3: given the above, is it acceptable to remove the old
+backend?
+
+This RFC proposes answering "yes" to Question 3 above, contingent on
+receiving no answers to Question 1 or Question 2 that would change our
+path.
+  
+## Part 2: Logistics
+
+There are several steps that we can take, in order, to remove the old
+backend and then carry out some clean-up work afterward.
+
+Much of this work, especially the work to snip out the backend itself
+and replace legalizations where needed, has already been drafted by
+@bjorn3 in bytecodealliance/wasmtime#3009 (thanks!). This RFC's goal
+is to gain consensus on a process around merging this work, and
+outline the steps to carry it through with the appropriate cleanup
+afterward.
+
+1. Remove the `BackendVariant::Legacy` enum option. This is an
+   API-breaking change that will force embedders who were explicitly
+   selecting the old backend to see that the old backend is no longer
+   available.
+   
+2. Remove the `old-x86-backend` Cargo build flag.
+
+3. Remove the x86 backend itself: recipes and encodings in
+   `cranelift/codegen/isa/x86/`.
+
+4. Remove any remaining backend-specific CDSL / meta-crate code except
+   for that which remains necessary. We believe this should include at
+   least register definitions and platform-specific legalizations. We
+   will need to replace some of the legalizations that the new backend
+   relies on with handwritten versions in the `simple_legalize`
+   framework.
+   
+5. Remove old code in the rest of the compiler.
+
+   - Support for generating unwind info from the old backend's
+     compilation result.
+   - Support for generating debuginfo from the old backend's
+     compilation result.
+   - Compiler components only used when compiling with the old
+     backend:
+     - The register allocator.
+     - The ABI legalization code.
+     - The branch relaxation and binary emission pipeline.
+   - Compiler data structures that are no longer used:
+     - `encodings`, `locations`, `entry_diversions`, `offsets`,
+       `jt_offsets`, prologue and epilogue info, etc., on
+       `ir::Function`.
+     - Any code that still generates/maintains/uses any of the above
+       can and should be removed as well.
+
+6. Begin to consider how the pipeline could be simplified in other
+   ways now that some constraints are gone.
+   - CodeSink: return machine code in some format more similar to the
+     `MachBuffer`'s output, i.e., a single monolithic buffer rather
+     than the `put1`/`put2`/... fine-grained API calling into the
+     embedder repeatedly?
+
+# Rationale and alternatives
+[rationale-and-alternatives]: #rationale-and-alternatives
+
+As described above, this is the end of a long journey of refactoring
+and transition to a cleaner design; there is no reason to keep the old
+backend around once we've migrated all use-cases away from it and are
+no longer spending effort maintaining it.
+
+# Open questions
+[open-questions]: #open-questions
+
+1. Are there any significant users of the old backend that we have missed?
+
+2. Is there any functionality in the old backend that we have not yet
+   adequately replicated in the new backend?