[LLVMdev] Checked arithmetic
baldrick at free.fr
Wed Mar 26 08:24:02 PDT 2008
> > can you really use condition codes for multiply and floating point?
> For scalar multiply, not really. What you *can* do is use the native
> multiply instruction that does (32x32)->(lower,upper), and then decide
> based on the upper 32 bits of the result whether you had a
> multiply-carry. Similarly for i-divide 64->(quotient,remainder).
I think this is what you get if you do the multiply in an integer of twice
> For floating point I am thinking about something else entirely. There is
> a NaN propagation mode specified in IEEE that lets you run a chain of FP
> ops and then check for NaN at the end, with the guarantee that the
> intervening ops will be NaN-preserving. You can't store the results back
> to memory without a check, but the technique avoids a check in the fp
> pipeline that can be serializing on intermediate expression results.
> The catch is that you can't use that technique unless you can ensure
> that the FPcc isn't clobbered by something else in the middle, which
> seems to suggest that you want to track the FP condition code as a
> And then there are machines with multiple condition codes, and machines
> the simply put the condition codes into a scalar register. These seem to
> suggest that first-rate support for condition codes wants them to be
> handled as a register class.
In any case, this is all at the codegen level. You suggested introducing
condition codes into the IR, and I tried to point out that you can get
at least some of what you want by using arbitrary precision integers and
floating point types (these last don't exist yet) in the IR. For sure there
needs to be some careful codegen work to have everything come out optimally
when you codegen.
> > You
> > can handle integer multiply by doing it in an integer twice as wide as the
> > one you are interested in, so an i64 on a 32 bit machine. Is there hardware
> > that supports checking for multiply overflow in a more efficient fashion,
> > and if so how does it work/get used?
> On some machines there is. For example, both SPARC and MIPS have
> instructions that do a 32x32 multiply producing a 64 bit result. The
> upper bits of the result go into a side register, or in some cases the
> output of the multiply unit goes into a distinct (lower, upper) register
> pair that is not part of the normal register set.
> This is an idea that comes and goes. The side register has to be renamed
> specially, and can become a rename bottleneck in the issue unit, so it
> may be an idea whose time came and went. On machines that do 32x32->32,
> I do not know what outcome happens on the condition codes, but we can
> surely look that up.
More information about the llvm-dev