[LLVMdev] Float compare-for-equality and select optimizationopportunity

[Nicolas Capens]

Hi Marc,

 

I'm a bit confused. Isn't the standard compare (i.e. the one for a language
like C) an ordered one? I tried converting some C code to LLVM C++ API code
with the online demo, and it uses FCMP_OEQ.

 

Cheers,

 

Nicolas

 

From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] On
Behalf Of Marc B. Reynolds
Sent: Tuesday, 27 May, 2008 14:07
To: 'LLVM Developers Mailing List'
Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Float compare-for-equality and select
optimizationopportunity

 

Both ZF and PF will be set if unordered, so the code below is IEEE
correct...you want to generate 'fcmp ueq' instead of 'fcmp oqe'

This is the resulting x86 assembly code:

 

movss       xmm0,dword ptr [ecx+4] 

ucomiss     xmm0,dword ptr [ecx+8] 

sete        al   

setnp       dl   

test        dl,al 

mov         edx,edi 

cmovne      edx,ecx 

cmovne      ecx,esi 

cmovne      esi,edi

 

While I'm pleasantly surprised that my branch does get turned into several
select operations as intended (cmov - conditional move - in x86), I'm
confused why it uses the ucomiss instruction (unordered compare and set
flags). I only used IRBuilder::CreateFCmpOEQ. It also appears to invert the
conditional, for no clear reason. I think it could be rewritten as follows:

 

movss       xmm0,dword ptr [ecx+4] 

comiss      xmm0,dword ptr [ecx+8] 

mov         edx,edi 

cmove       edx,ecx 

cmove       ecx,esi 

cmove       esi,edi

 

Compared to the original C syntax code this looks pretty straightforward.
Curiously, when I replace the compare-for-equality with something like a
less-than, it does generate such compact code (using comiss and cmova). And
the not-equal case looks like this:

 

movss       xmm0,dword ptr [ecx+4] 

ucomiss     xmm0,dword ptr [ecx+8] 

mov         esi,ecx 

cmove       esi,edx 

cmovne      ecx,eax 

cmove       edx,eax

 

So this generates compact code but with an unordered compare.

 

Anyway, it looks like the compare-for-equality case in particular is missing
an optimization opportunity. It's no big deal to me but I thought someone
here might be interested.

 

Cheers,

 

Nicolas Capens

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20080527/c1bef4df/attachment.html>