[LLVMbugs] [Bug 23106] New: Division followed by modulo generates longer machine code than vice versa
bugzilla-daemon at llvm.org
bugzilla-daemon at llvm.org
Thu Apr 2 05:43:24 PDT 2015
https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=23106
Bug ID: 23106
Summary: Division followed by modulo generates longer machine
code than vice versa
Product: libraries
Version: trunk
Hardware: PC
OS: Linux
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priority: P
Component: Scalar Optimizations
Assignee: unassignedbugs at nondot.org
Reporter: ed at 80386.nl
CC: llvmbugs at cs.uiuc.edu
Classification: Unclassified
Consider the following piece of C code:
#include <stdint.h>
struct tv {
int64_t tv_sec;
int32_t tv_usec;
};
void convert1(uint64_t ts, struct tv *tv) {
tv->tv_sec = ts / 1000000000;
tv->tv_usec = (ts % 1000000000) / 1000;
}
void convert2(uint64_t ts, struct tv *tv) {
ts /= 1000;
tv->tv_sec = ts / 1000000;
tv->tv_usec = ts % 1000000;
}
Essentially they are functions that convert a UNIX timestamp in nanoseconds to
a struct timeval-like structure (with microseconds precision). Both functions
should be identical.
Anyway, if I compare the machine code generated by Clang r233700 with -O3, it
generates the following machine code:
0000000000000000 <convert1>:
0: 55 push %rbp
1: 48 89 e5 mov %rsp,%rbp
4: 48 89 f8 mov %rdi,%rax
7: 48 c1 e8 09 shr $0x9,%rax
b: 48 b9 53 5a 9b a0 2f mov $0x44b82fa09b5a53,%rcx
12: b8 44 00
15: 48 f7 e1 mul %rcx
18: 48 c1 ea 0b shr $0xb,%rdx
1c: 48 89 16 mov %rdx,(%rsi)
1f: 48 69 c2 00 ca 9a 3b imul $0x3b9aca00,%rdx,%rax
26: 48 29 c7 sub %rax,%rdi
29: 48 c1 ef 03 shr $0x3,%rdi
2d: 48 b9 cf f7 53 e3 a5 mov $0x20c49ba5e353f7cf,%rcx
34: 9b c4 20
37: 48 89 f8 mov %rdi,%rax
3a: 48 f7 e1 mul %rcx
3d: 48 c1 ea 04 shr $0x4,%rdx
41: 89 56 08 mov %edx,0x8(%rsi)
44: 5d pop %rbp
45: c3 retq
0000000000000000 <convert2>:
0: 55 push %rbp
1: 48 89 e5 mov %rsp,%rbp
4: 48 89 f8 mov %rdi,%rax
7: 48 c1 e8 03 shr $0x3,%rax
b: 48 b9 cf f7 53 e3 a5 mov $0x20c49ba5e353f7cf,%rcx
12: 9b c4 20
15: 48 f7 e1 mul %rcx
18: 48 89 d1 mov %rdx,%rcx
1b: 48 c1 e9 04 shr $0x4,%rcx
1f: 48 c1 ef 09 shr $0x9,%rdi
23: 48 ba 53 5a 9b a0 2f mov $0x44b82fa09b5a53,%rdx
2a: b8 44 00
2d: 48 89 f8 mov %rdi,%rax
30: 48 f7 e2 mul %rdx
33: 48 c1 ea 0b shr $0xb,%rdx
37: 48 89 16 mov %rdx,(%rsi)
3a: 48 ba db 34 b6 d7 82 mov $0x431bde82d7b634db,%rdx
41: de 1b 43
44: 48 89 c8 mov %rcx,%rax
47: 48 f7 e2 mul %rdx
4a: 48 c1 ea 12 shr $0x12,%rdx
4e: 69 c2 40 42 0f 00 imul $0xf4240,%edx,%eax
54: 29 c1 sub %eax,%ecx
56: 89 4e 08 mov %ecx,0x8(%rsi)
59: 5d pop %rbp
5a: c3
As a 30% increase in code size is not negligible, I thought it would make sense
to file a bug. Maybe there room for an optimization here?
--
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/20150402/48ea4433/attachment.html>
More information about the llvm-bugs
mailing list