Hi everyone,
So recently I took it upon myself to make some minor changes to uComplex
in order to produce more optimal code, especially under x86_64
platforms. The changes included adding "const" to most of the function
and operator parameters so ones that are passed by reference aren't
needlessly copied by the prologues, and also to align the complex type
and utilise the vectorcall calling convention under Win64 (and the
System V ABI on non-Windows platforms) so the compiler better utilises
the XMM registers (it can pass the entire complex type by value this way
through a single register).
The "const" suggestion was made by a third party, and while I went out
of my way to ensure the functions aren't changed in Pascal code, Florian
pointed out that it could break existing assembler code. Maybe I'm
being a bit stubborn or unreasonable, I'm not sure, but in my eyes,
using assembly language to directly call the uComplex functions and
operators seems rather unrealistic. I figured if you're writing in
assembly language, especially if you're using vector registers, you'd be
using your own code to play around with complex numbers. Plus I figured
that if you're developing on a non-x86_64 platform, the only thing
that's different are the 'const' modifiers, which I don't think changes
the way you actually call the function, regardless of platform. Am I
right in this?
The intention was to make the lightweight unit even more lightweight and
optimal, without breaking backwards compatibility. Are there any known
examples out there that could break or would otherwise need testing?
I figured uComplex was a good place to start in optimising/refactoring
some of the existing units, mainly because I'm a mathematician and hence
know how complex numbers work, and the individual functions are simple
enough that you can easily see how efficient they are in a disassembler
(so are a good test case for new compiler optimisations).
I guess a more fundamental question I should ask, and this might be
terribly naïve of me, is this: when you call some function F(x: TType),
is there a situation where calling F(const x: TType) produces different
machine code or where a particular actual parameter becomes illegal?
Note I'm talking about how you call the function, not how the function
itself is compiled.
Gareth aka. Kit
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________
fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
https://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
