[Bug rtl-optimization/99320] New: constexpr defined arrays within constexpr functions would benefit from lookup-tables

[Bug rtl-optimization/99320] New: constexpr defined arrays within constexpr functions would benefit from lookup-tables

[gcc-bugs at marehr dot dialup.fu-berlin.de]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99320

            Bug ID: 99320
           Summary: constexpr defined arrays within constexpr functions
                    would benefit from lookup-tables
           Product: gcc
           Version: 10.2.1
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P3
         Component: rtl-optimization
          Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
          Reporter: gcc-bugs at marehr dot dialup.fu-berlin.de
  Target Milestone: ---

Hi gcc-team,

first of all, sorry if this is the wrong component, but I guess that this is a
"missed-optimization" issue rather than a regular C++ issue, so I wasn't sure
which component fit the most.

I have the following code (which can be further reduced, but I kept it as
original as possible to reflect my use case):

```c++
#include <array>

struct foo
{
static constexpr char bar(unsigned idx)
{
    constexpr std::array<char, 256> lookup_table
    {
        [] () constexpr
        {
            std::array<char, 256> ret{};

            // reverse mapping for characters and their lowercase
            for (unsigned rnk = 0u; rnk < 15; ++rnk)
            {
                ret[rnk + 'A'] = rnk;
            }

            // set U equal to T
            ret['U'] = ret['T']; ret['u'] = ret['t'];

            // iupac characters get special treatment, because there is no N
            ret['R'] = ret['A']; ret['r'] = ret['A']; // A or G
            ret['Y'] = ret['C']; ret['y'] = ret['C']; // C or T
            ret['S'] = ret['C']; ret['s'] = ret['C']; // C or G
            ret['W'] = ret['A']; ret['w'] = ret['A']; // A or T
            ret['K'] = ret['G']; ret['k'] = ret['G']; // G or T
            ret['M'] = ret['A']; ret['m'] = ret['A']; // A or T
            ret['B'] = ret['C']; ret['b'] = ret['C']; // C or G or T
            ret['D'] = ret['A']; ret['d'] = ret['A']; // A or G or T
            ret['H'] = ret['A']; ret['h'] = ret['A']; // A or C or T
            ret['V'] = ret['A']; ret['v'] = ret['A']; // A or C or G

            return ret;
        }()
    };

    return lookup_table[idx];
}
};

int main(int argc, char const ** argv)
{
    return foo::bar(argc);
}

```

I wanted to switch from defining that lookup-table within the class (e.g.
`static constexpr ... lookup_table = ...`) to define the lookup-table within
the function directly, and I noticed that I had some performance regression in
my benchmarks. Some micro benchmarks went from ~80ns to ~3000ns, but I also saw
an impact on more "realistic" macro benchmarks.

After looking at the assembly https://godbolt.org/z/n9bo7W, I noticed that the
table is "constructed" on each function call rather than a single
lookup-instruction.

So I compared it to what clang does, and it seems that they are actually
generating a static lookup table.

I know that this use case is quite niche, but it would be cool to have it
nevertheless :)

Thank you!

[Bug rtl-optimization/99320] constexpr defined arrays within constexpr functions would benefit from lookup-tables

[jakub at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99320

Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org

--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Looks like a dup of PR99091 to me.

[Bug rtl-optimization/99320] constexpr defined arrays within constexpr functions would benefit from lookup-tables

[gcc-bugs at marehr dot dialup.fu-berlin.de]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99320

--- Comment #2 from gcc-bugs at marehr dot dialup.fu-berlin.de ---
You are right, it seems to be the same issue except that my function is
constexpr, and I can't use `static constexpr ...` within the function, but
Barry mentioned that use case already.

You mentioned something that gcc needs to prove that this is safe, but I think
my use case is "safe" since it is constexpr :)

[Bug rtl-optimization/99320] constexpr defined arrays within constexpr functions would benefit from lookup-tables

[jakub at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99320

--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
constexpr doesn't imply anything like that.
constexpr variables can still be odr-used, their address taken, compared etc.