[LLVMdev] Float compare-for-equality and select optimization opportunity
Nicolas Capens
nicolas at capens.net
Tue May 27 02:09:43 PDT 2008
Hi all,
I'm trying to generate code containing an ordered float compare for
equality, and select. The resulting code however has an unordered compare
and some Boolean logic that I think could be eliminated. In C syntax the
code looks like this:
float x, y;
int a, b, c
if(x == y) // Rotate the integers
{
int t;
t = a;
a = b;
b = c;
c = t;
}
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/dedc7749/attachment.html>
More information about the llvm-dev
mailing list