See the existing commentary for TargetInfo::isCLZForZeroUndef.  ARM, AArch64, 
Mips, PPC all have this as defined for zero input, see overrides in Targets.cpp.
This is well-trod ground, and merely corrects a deficiency in the X86 info.

Andrea has a patch coming that does exactly the simplification you're 
suggesting, but driven by the flag passed in by Clang rather than a-priori 
knowledge about instruction behavior.

I'm not willing to take on the chore of reassigning responsibility for which 
component knows exactly which arcana about particular instructions.  I could 
see adding a note to the description of the builtins.
--paulr

From: Sean Silva [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2014 7:03 PM
To: Robinson, Paul
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [PATCH][X86] __builtin_ctz/clz sometimed defined for zero input


If I understand correctly, this patch is trying to change the meaning of 
__builtin_ctz (et al.) under some extremely specific conditions. I don't think 
that is the right direction since it will cause surprising undefined behavior 
bugs across platforms. The intrinsic is documented to have undefined behavior 
in the 0 case (everywhere I looked, including our internal docs); a user that 
relies on the 0 case has a bug. It would be nice to add a UBSan check for this 
undefined behavior though to help users fix their code.

It would be better to just ensure that we always generate optimal code in the 
presence of a manual guard for the 0 case. For example, in the middle-end we 
could fold a manual 0 guard followed by @llvm.ctlz.*(X, true) into 
@llvm.ctlz.*(X, false).

-- Sean Silva

On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 4:40 PM, Robinson, Paul 
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> 
wrote:
In general, count-zeros instructions are undefined for a zero input value.
However the X86 TZCNT and LZCNT instructions do return the bit-width on a
zero input, so make Clang tell LLVM so.
One quirk is that these instructions aren't necessarily both defined, so
also create a separate predicate so we can do the right thing for all CPUs.
--paulr


_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits

_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits

Reply via email to