Hi Gareth,
in my opinion it is not a good idea to introduce a new function to calculate
the operand size.
The risk of breaking existing code (fpc and user code) is very high.
I introduced the system with memrefinfo for sse and avx opcodes to protect the
existing user code. The basis of this concept is the opcode definition in
x86ins.dat
In trunk is the definition for opcode VCVTPD2PS:
; VCVTPD2PS xmmreg_mz,mem256 must come first - map MemRefSize 256bits correct
; map all other MemrefSize
(without broasdcast MemRef) to xmmreg, xmmrm
[VCVTPD2PS,vcvtpd2psM]
(Ch_Wop2, Ch_Rop1)
xmmreg_mz,mem256 \350\352\361\362\364\370\1\x5A\110
AVX,SANDYBRIDGE,TFV
xmmreg_mz,ymmreg \350\352\361\362\364\370\1\x5A\110
AVX,SANDYBRIDGE
xmmreg_mz,xmmrm \350\352\361\362\370\1\x5A\110
AVX,SANDYBRIDGE,TFV
// AVX512
xmmreg_mz,bmem64 \350\352\361\370\1\x5A\110
AVX512,BCST2,TFV
xmmreg_mz,bmem64 \350\352\361\364\370\1\x5A\110
AVX512,BCST4,TFV
ymmreg_mz,mem512 \350\351\352\361\370\1\x5A\110
AVX512,TFV
ymmreg_mz,bmem64 \350\351\352\361\370\1\x5A\110
AVX512,BCST8,TFV
ymmreg_mz,zmmreg_er \350\351\352\361\370\1\x5A\110
AVX512
In trunk is compiling correct (without compileroption -a), with -a is not
correct. I check this.
Torsten
-----Original-Nachricht-----
Betreff: Re: [fpc-devel] SSE/AVX instruction encodings
Datum: 2020-10-01T18:04:26+0200
Von: "J. Gareth Moreton via fpc-devel" <fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org>
An: "fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org" <fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org>
Hi Torsten,
I've done that already actually, although only to grab the value of the
ExistsSSEAVX field. I'm currently testing a new nested function in
Tx86Instruction.SetInstructionOpsize:
function CheckSSEAVX: Boolean;
begin
Result := False;
if not MemRefInfo(opcode).ExistsSSEAVX then
Exit;
{ This check also covers MMX instructions that move data to and from
32-bit and 64-bit registers or memory, since such instructions are
replicated in SSE2 for use with XMM registers }
if tx86operand(operands[1]).opsize in [S_B,S_W,S_L,S_Q] then
begin
opsize := S_NO;
Exit(True);
end;
if (tx86operand(operands[1]).opsize <> S_NO) and
(operands[1].opr.typ = OPR_REFERENCE) then
begin
{ Memory sizes of 64 bits and under are handled above }
opsize:=tx86operand(operands[1]).opsize;
Exit(True);
end;
{ If the source operand is larger than the destination (e.g.
"VCVTTPD2DQ XMM0, YMM1" in Intel notation), use the source
operand }
if ((tx86operand(operands[1]).opsize = S_YMM) and
(tx86operand(operands[2]).opsize = S_XMM)) or
(tx86operand(operands[1]).opsize = S_ZMM) and
(tx86operand(operands[2]).opsize = S_XMM) or
(tx86operand(operands[1]).opsize = S_ZMM) and
(tx86operand(operands[2]).opsize = S_YMM) then
begin
opsize:=tx86operand(operands[1]).opsize;
Exit(True);
end;
{ If none of the conditions are met, this function returns False
and the
opsize is set to the last operand's opsize }
end;
I've also commented out the individual checks for MOVD, MOVQ, VMOVQ etc
to see how it handles itself and to simplify the code. "make all" at
least works successfully and it fixes the bug listed in #37785, but it
will need extensive testing, lest I break someone's assembly language.
Note that the reason why I've done "(tx86operand(operands[1]).opsize =
S_YMM) and (tx86operand(operands[2]).opsize = S_XMM)" etc. and not
something like "(tx86operand(operands[1]).opsize >= S_YMM) and
(tx86operand(operands[1]).opsize > tx86operand(operands[2]).opsize)" is
for future safety, since the opsize field doesn't have items in size
order (plus some entries, like S_BL, don't have a distinct size because
it's a size conversion) and it's to prevent an unintended side-effect if
a new entry is added after S_ZMM in the future.
One thing that makes it difficult is that I don't have a processor that
supports the AVX-512 instruction set, at least I don't think it does
(Intel Core i7-10750H).
Gareth aka. Kit
P.S. If anyone can see a way to break the above code (before I submit a
patch), please tell me!
On 01/10/2020 15:52, avx512--- via fpc-devel wrote:
> Hi,
>
> look at the function "MemRefInfo(aAsmop: TAsmOp)" in
> "compiler/x86/aasmcpu.pas".
>
>
> Torsten
>
>
>
> -----Original-Nachricht-----
> Betreff: [fpc-devel] SSE/AVX instruction encodings
> Datum: 2020-10-01T13:57:05+0200
> Von: "J. Gareth Moreton via fpc-devel" <fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org>
> An: "FPC developers' list" <fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org>
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> I've decided to take on https://bugs.freepascal.org/view.php?id=37785 -
> I've noticed that the compiler isn't too good at working out the sizes
> of SSE and AVX instructions. If you look at
> Tx86Instruction.SetInstructionOpsize in compiler/x86/rax86.pas, it
> checks for individual problematic instructions rather than any logical
> flags. I feel this isn't viable in the long-term (i.e. I really don't
> want to continually add exceptional instructions) and has the code smell
> of something being fundamentally wrong or incomplete with how
> instruction sizes and encodings are determined.
>
> I'm looking to see if there's a way I can detect the correct size
> logically given the flags. I figure I'll need to learn a few things
> about AVX512 as well so I don't mess anything up (I've noticed a few
> AVX512 flags to indicate if scalars rather than vectors are being used,
> and wondering if they can be incorporated into the older SSE and AVX
> instructions in x86ins.dat.
>
> Long story short, I'm going to experiment a bit to see if I can develop
> an algorithm that works and is correct.
>
> 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
_______________________________________________
fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
https://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
