[LLVMbugs] [Bug 16725] New: Inefficient code generated for i64 * i64 -> i128 multiplication in loop
bugzilla-daemon at llvm.org
bugzilla-daemon at llvm.org
Sun Jul 28 09:45:31 PDT 2013
http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=16725
Bug ID: 16725
Summary: Inefficient code generated for i64 * i64 -> i128
multiplication in loop
Product: libraries
Version: trunk
Hardware: PC
OS: Linux
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priority: P
Component: Common Code Generator Code
Assignee: unassignedbugs at nondot.org
Reporter: jacob.manuel at yahoo.de
CC: llvmbugs at cs.uiuc.edu
Classification: Unclassified
Created attachment 10942
--> http://llvm.org/bugs/attachment.cgi?id=10942&action=edit
clang mul1.c -S -O3 -std=c99 -o mul1_clang.s
The code generator currently doesn't expand a 128-bit multiplication of two
sign-extended integers into a SMUL_LOHI node if one operand is passed over a
loop boundary.
Example code:
#define SHIFT 63
#define MASK ((1LU << SHIFT) - 1)
void mul1(int64_t *arr, long arrsize, int64_t factor) {
__int128 carry = 0;
for (long i = 0; i < arrsize; ++i) {
__int128 e = arr[i];
carry += e * factor;
arr[i] = carry & MASK;
carry >>= SHIFT;
}
}
Clang generates this code for the inner loop:
movq (%rdi), %rcx
movq %rcx, %rbx
imulq %r9, %rbx
movq %rcx, %rax
mulq %r8
addq %rbx, %rdx
sarq $63, %rcx
imulq %r8, %rcx
addq %rdx, %rcx
addq %r10, %rax
adcq %r14, %rcx
movq %rcx, %r10
shldq $1, %rax, %r10
andq %r11, %rax
movq %rax, (%rdi)
sarq $63, %rcx
addq $8, %rdi
decq %rsi
movq %rcx, %r14
jne .LBB0_2
While gcc generates this code:
movq %r8, %rax
imulq (%rcx)
addq %rsi, %rax
movq %rax, %rsi
adcq %rdi, %rdx
addq $8, %rcx
andq %r9, %rsi
movq %rsi, -8(%rcx)
shrdq $63, %rdx, %rax
sarq $63, %rdx
cmpq %r10, %rcx
movq %rax, %rsi
movq %rdx, %rdi
jne .L4
Clang generates three multiplication instructions while gcc only generates one.
This is very likely the same issue as described in lib/Target/X86/README.txt:
//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
This code:
void vec_mpys1(int y[], const int x[], int scaler) {
int i;
for (i = 0; i < 150; i++)
y[i] += (((long long)scaler * (long long)x[i]) >> 31);
}
Compiles to this loop with GCC 3.x:
.L5:
movl %ebx, %eax
imull (%edi,%ecx,4)
shrdl $31, %edx, %eax
addl %eax, (%esi,%ecx,4)
incl %ecx
cmpl $149, %ecx
jle .L5
llvm-gcc compiles it to the much uglier:
LBB1_1: ## bb1
movl 24(%esp), %eax
movl (%eax,%edi,4), %ebx
movl %ebx, %ebp
imull %esi, %ebp
movl %ebx, %eax
mull %ecx
addl %ebp, %edx
sarl $31, %ebx
imull %ecx, %ebx
addl %edx, %ebx
shldl $1, %eax, %ebx
movl 20(%esp), %eax
addl %ebx, (%eax,%edi,4)
incl %edi
cmpl $150, %edi
jne LBB1_1 ## bb1
The issue is that we hoist the cast of "scaler" to long long outside of the
loop, the value comes into the loop as two values, and
RegsForValue::getCopyFromRegs doesn't know how to put an AssertSext on the
constructed BUILD_PAIR which represents the cast value.
This can be handled by making CodeGenPrepare sink the cast.
//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-bugs/attachments/20130728/433f1114/attachment.html>
More information about the llvm-bugs
mailing list