On 23/07/2021 08:04, Prathamesh Kulkarni via Gcc-patches wrote: > On Thu, 22 Jul 2021 at 20:29, Richard Earnshaw > <richard.earns...@foss.arm.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> On 22/07/2021 14:47, Prathamesh Kulkarni via Gcc-patches wrote: >>> On Thu, 22 Jul 2021 at 17:28, Richard Earnshaw >>> <richard.earns...@foss.arm.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 22/07/2021 12:32, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote: >>>>> On Thu, 22 Jul 2021 at 16:03, Richard Earnshaw >>>>> <richard.earns...@foss.arm.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 22/07/2021 08:45, Prathamesh Kulkarni via Gcc-patches wrote: >>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>> The attached patch removes calls to builtins from vshl_n intrinsics, >>>>>>> and replacing them >>>>>>> with left shift operator. The patch passes bootstrap+test on >>>>>>> arm-linux-gnueabihf. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Altho, I noticed, that the patch causes 3 extra registers to spill >>>>>>> using << instead >>>>>>> of the builtin for vshl_n.c. Could that be perhaps due to inlining of >>>>>>> intrinsics ? >>>>>>> Before patch, the shift operation was performed by call to >>>>>>> __builtin_neon_vshl<type> (__a, __b) >>>>>>> and now it's inlined to __a << __b, which might result in increased >>>>>>> register pressure ? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>> Prathamesh >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> You're missing a ChangeLog for the patch. >>>>> Sorry, updated in this patch. >>>>>> >>>>>> However, I'm not sure about this. The register shift form of VSHL >>>>>> performs a right shift if the value is negative, which is UB if you >>>>>> write `<<` instead. >>>>>> >>>>>> Have I missed something here? >>>>> Hi Richard, >>>>> According to this article: >>>>> https://developer.arm.com/documentation/den0018/a/NEON-Intrinsics-Reference/Shift/VSHL-N >>>>> For vshl_n, the shift amount is always in the non-negative range for all >>>>> types. >>>>> >>>>> I tried using vshl_n_s32 (a, -1), and the compiler emitted following >>>>> diagnostic: >>>>> foo.c: In function ‘main’: >>>>> foo.c:17:1: error: constant -1 out of range 0 - 31 >>>>> 17 | } >>>>> | ^ >>>>> >>>> >>>> It does do that now, but that's because the intrinsic expansion does >>>> some bounds checking; when you remove the call into the back-end >>>> intrinsic that will no-longer happen. >>>> >>>> I think with this change various things are likely: >>>> >>>> - We'll no-longer reject non-immediate values, so users will be able to >>>> write >>>> >>>> int b = 5; >>>> vshl_n_s32 (a, b); >>>> >>>> which will expand to a vdup followed by the register form. >>>> >>>> - we'll rely on the front-end diagnosing out-of range shifts >>>> >>>> - code of the form >>>> >>>> int b = -1; >>>> vshl_n_s32 (a, b); >>>> >>>> will probably now go through without any errors, especially at low >>>> optimization levels. It may end up doing what the user wanted, but it's >>>> definitely a change in behaviour - and perhaps worse, the compiler might >>>> diagnose the above as UB and silently throw some stuff away. >>>> >>>> It might be that we need to insert some form of static assertion that >>>> the second argument is a __builtin_constant_p(). >>> Ah right, thanks for the suggestions! >>> I tried the above example: >>> int b = -1; >>> vshl_n_s32 (a, b); >>> and it compiled without any errors with -O0 after patch. >>> >>> Would it be OK to use _Static_assert (__builtin_constant_p (b)) to >>> guard against non-immediate values ? >>> >>> With the following change: >>> __extension__ extern __inline int32x2_t >>> __attribute__ ((__always_inline__, __gnu_inline__, __artificial__)) >>> vshl_n_s32 (int32x2_t __a, const int __b) >>> { >>> _Static_assert (__builtin_constant_p (__b)); >>> return __a << __b; >>> } >>> >>> the above example fails at -O0: >>> ../armhf-build/gcc/include/arm_neon.h: In function ‘vshl_n_s32’: >>> ../armhf-build/gcc/include/arm_neon.h:4904:3: error: static assertion failed >>> 4904 | _Static_assert (__builtin_constant_p (__b)); >>> | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> >> I've been playing with that but unfortunately it doesn't seem to work in >> the way we want it to. For a complete test: >> >> >> >> typedef __simd64_int32_t int32x2_t; >> >> __extension__ extern __inline int32x2_t >> __attribute__ ((__always_inline__, __gnu_inline__, __artificial__)) >> vshl_n_s32 (int32x2_t __a, const int __b) >> { >> _Static_assert (__builtin_constant_p (__b), "Second argument must be >> a litteral constant"); >> return __a << __b; >> } >> >> int32x2_t f (int32x2_t x, const int b) >> { >> return vshl_n_s32 (x, 1); >> } >> >> At -O0 I get: >> >> test.c: In function ‘vshl_n_s32’: >> test.c:7:3: error: static assertion failed: "Second argument must be a >> litteral constant" >> 7 | _Static_assert (__builtin_constant_p (__b), "Second argument >> must be a litteral constant"); >> | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> >> While at -O1 and above I get: >> >> >> test.c: In function ‘vshl_n_s32’: >> test.c:7:19: error: expression in static assertion is not constant >> 7 | _Static_assert (__builtin_constant_p (__b), "Second argument >> must be a litteral constant"); >> | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> >> Which indicates that it doesn't consider __builtin_constant_p() to be a >> constant expression :( >> >> So either I'm writing the static assertion incorrectly, or something >> weird is going on. The most likely issue is that the static assertion >> is being processed too early, before the function is inlined. > Ah indeed. I wonder if we should add an attribute to parameter that it > should be constant, > and emit an error if the caller passes non-constant value ? > sth like: > void foo(int x __attribute__((runtime_constant))); > and the front-end can then diagnose if the argument is > __builtin_constant_p while type-checking call to foo.
It's an interesting idea, it would have to be on the prototype, not on the function declaration (except where that serves both purposes). We might also want an optional range check on the value as well. I think a better name for the immediate would be literal_constant, which is more in keeping with the semantics of the language. So: void foo(int x __attribute__((literal_constant (min_val, max_val))); R. > > Thanks, > Prathamesh >> >> R. >> >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Prathamesh >>>> >>>> R. >>>> >>>>> So, is the attached patch OK ? >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> Prathamesh >>>>>> >>>>>> R.
