Re: [LAD] Bit shift
On Sun, 17 Mar 2019 20:12:04 +0100 Robin Gareus wrote: >On 3/17/19 5:56 PM, Jonathan Brickman wrote: >> That is likely to change depending on GCC optimization setting, no? > >Not usually. It depends on the target architecture more than anything. > >Even with -O0, gcc translates integer addition and multiplications into >a combination of bitwise and arithmetic operations if that is >appropriate for the target CPU. > > >On 3/12/19 11:43 PM, Will Godfrey wrote: >> Does anyone know if GCC will replace power of 2 >> multiplications/divisions of unsigned integers with bit shifts? >Not only power of two, and it depends. In some cases the compiler >doesn't replace it because the resulting code is not faster. Many modern >CPU already implement integer multiplication using bitwise operations in >microcode. > >I don't know if this your question is academic, but if you plan to >manually optimize code, I highly recommend against that. > >Write semantically! If you mean a multiplication, use (a * 2), if you >mean bit-shift use (a << 1). Do not use bitwise-operations when you >really do integer-arithmetics. > >Your future self and code-contributers will thank you for it; as will >compilers targeting future CPU architectures. > > >2c, >robin Thanks Robin. Very clear. It's the direction I was beginning to think in. It's sometimes difficult to imagine how far compilers have advanced over the years. -- Will J Godfrey http://www.musically.me.uk Say you have a poem and I have a tune. Exchange them and we can both have a poem, a tune, and a song. ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org https://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] Bit shift
On 3/17/19 5:56 PM, Jonathan Brickman wrote: > That is likely to change depending on GCC optimization setting, no? Not usually. It depends on the target architecture more than anything. Even with -O0, gcc translates integer addition and multiplications into a combination of bitwise and arithmetic operations if that is appropriate for the target CPU. On 3/12/19 11:43 PM, Will Godfrey wrote: > Does anyone know if GCC will replace power of 2 > multiplications/divisions of unsigned integers with bit shifts? Not only power of two, and it depends. In some cases the compiler doesn't replace it because the resulting code is not faster. Many modern CPU already implement integer multiplication using bitwise operations in microcode. I don't know if this your question is academic, but if you plan to manually optimize code, I highly recommend against that. Write semantically! If you mean a multiplication, use (a * 2), if you mean bit-shift use (a << 1). Do not use bitwise-operations when you really do integer-arithmetics. Your future self and code-contributers will thank you for it; as will compilers targeting future CPU architectures. 2c, robin ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org https://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] Bit shift
On Sun, Mar 17, 2019 at 11:56:40AM -0500, Jonathan Brickman wrote: > That is likely to change depending on GCC optimization setting, no? > This is why you can't trust very high level languages like C, and should be wary of high-level languages like assembler. -- Gordonjcp ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org https://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] Bit shift
J.E.B: > That is likely to change depending on GCC optimization setting, no? Then, why don't you just test it to find out, you have the means to that after all. Regards, /Karl Hammar ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org https://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] Bit shift
That is likely to change depending on GCC optimization setting, no?
J.E.B.
On Sat, Mar 16, 2019, 5:12 PM wrote:
> Will Godfrey:
> > On Wed, 13 Mar 2019 00:09:17 +0100 (CET)
> > k...@aspodata.se wrote:
> >
> > >Will Godfrey:
> > >> Does anyone know if GCC will replace power of 2
> multiplications/divisions of
> > >> unsigned integers with bit shifts?
> ...
> > >$ cat a.c
> > >#include
> > >
> > >int main(int argc, char *argv[]) {
> > > uint16_t b = argc * 2;
> > >
> > > return b;
> > >}
> > >$ gcc -S a.c
> ,,,
> > >It seems it just adds the value with itself here.
> ...
> > Thanks, that seems to hold true for a mixture of AMD and Intel machines.
>
> BTW, testing with 4, 8 and 16 instead of 2, it does actually do bit
> shifts:
>
> $ diff a.02.s a.04.s
> 16c16
> < addl%eax, %eax
> ---
> > sall$2, %eax
> $ diff a.02.s a.08.s
> 16c16
> < addl%eax, %eax
> ---
> > sall$3, %eax
> $ diff a.02.s a.16.s
> 16c16
> < addl%eax, %eax
> ---
> > sall$4, %eax
>
> Regards,
> /Karl Hammar
> ___
> Linux-audio-dev mailing list
> Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
> https://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
>
___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
https://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] Bit shift
Will Godfrey:
> On Wed, 13 Mar 2019 00:09:17 +0100 (CET)
> k...@aspodata.se wrote:
>
> >Will Godfrey:
> >> Does anyone know if GCC will replace power of 2 multiplications/divisions
> >> of
> >> unsigned integers with bit shifts?
...
> >$ cat a.c
> >#include
> >
> >int main(int argc, char *argv[]) {
> > uint16_t b = argc * 2;
> >
> > return b;
> >}
> >$ gcc -S a.c
,,,
> >It seems it just adds the value with itself here.
...
> Thanks, that seems to hold true for a mixture of AMD and Intel machines.
BTW, testing with 4, 8 and 16 instead of 2, it does actually do bit
shifts:
$ diff a.02.s a.04.s
16c16
< addl%eax, %eax
---
> sall$2, %eax
$ diff a.02.s a.08.s
16c16
< addl%eax, %eax
---
> sall$3, %eax
$ diff a.02.s a.16.s
16c16
< addl%eax, %eax
---
> sall$4, %eax
Regards,
/Karl Hammar
___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
https://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] Bit shift
On Wed, 13 Mar 2019 00:09:17 +0100 (CET)
k...@aspodata.se wrote:
>Will Godfrey:
>> Does anyone know if GCC will replace power of 2 multiplications/divisions of
>> unsigned integers with bit shifts?
>
>Test on your system:
>
>$ cat a.c
>#include
>
>int main(int argc, char *argv[]) {
> uint16_t b = argc * 2;
>
> return b;
>}
>$ gcc -S a.c
>$ cat a.s
>...
>main:
>.LFB0:
>.cfi_startproc
>pushq %rbp
>.cfi_def_cfa_offset 16
>.cfi_offset 6, -16
>movq%rsp, %rbp
>.cfi_def_cfa_register 6
>movl%edi, -20(%rbp)
>movq%rsi, -32(%rbp)
>movl-20(%rbp), %eax
>addl%eax, %eax
>movw%ax, -2(%rbp)
>movzwl -2(%rbp), %eax
>popq%rbp
>.cfi_def_cfa 7, 8
>ret
>.cfi_endproc
>...
>$
>
>It seems it just adds the value with itself here.
>
>Regards,
>/Karl Hammar
Thanks, that seems to hold true for a mixture of AMD and Intel machines.
--
It wasn't me! (Well actually, it probably was)
... the hard part is not dodging what life throws at you,
but trying to catch the good bits.
___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
https://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] Bit shift
Will Godfrey:
> Does anyone know if GCC will replace power of 2 multiplications/divisions of
> unsigned integers with bit shifts?
Test on your system:
$ cat a.c
#include
int main(int argc, char *argv[]) {
uint16_t b = argc * 2;
return b;
}
$ gcc -S a.c
$ cat a.s
...
main:
.LFB0:
.cfi_startproc
pushq %rbp
.cfi_def_cfa_offset 16
.cfi_offset 6, -16
movq%rsp, %rbp
.cfi_def_cfa_register 6
movl%edi, -20(%rbp)
movq%rsi, -32(%rbp)
movl-20(%rbp), %eax
addl%eax, %eax
movw%ax, -2(%rbp)
movzwl -2(%rbp), %eax
popq%rbp
.cfi_def_cfa 7, 8
ret
.cfi_endproc
...
$
It seems it just adds the value with itself here.
Regards,
/Karl Hammar
___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
https://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
