From: Jeff Law <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: "A. Binzberger" <email@example.com>,
Subject: Re: [PATCH] improved const shifts for AVR targets
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2022 22:52:15 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org> (raw)
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 11456 bytes --]
On 10/15/22 06:08, A. Binzberger wrote:
> Re: [PATCH] improved const shifts for AVR targets
> On 12.10.22 19:57, Jeff Law wrote:
>> On 10/4/22 11:06, Alexander Binzberger via Gcc-patches wrote:
>>> recently I used some arduino uno for a project and realized some areas
>>> which do not output optimal asm code. Especially around shifts and
>>> With this as motivation and hacktoberfest I started patching things.
>>> Since patch files do not provide a good overview and I hope for a
>>> "hacktoberfest-accepted" label on the PR on github I also opened it
>>> This patch improves shifts with const right hand operand. While 8bit
>>> 16bit shifts where mostly fine 24bit and 32bit where not handled well.
>>> I checked output with a local installation of compiler explorer in
>>> asm and
>>> a tiny unit test comparing shifts with mul/div by 2.
>>> I however did not write any testcases in gcc for it.
>>> This patch is only targeting atmel avr family of chips.
>>> improved const shifts for AVR targets
>> It would be helpful if you could show the before/after code for the
>> cases you're changing. Extra credit if you include cycles & size
>> information for those cases. That would help someone like me who
>> knows GCC well, but isn't particularly well versed in the AVR target
>> evaluate the overarching goal of the patch (ie, better code).
> about the avr family targets:
> * consider every branch instruction = 1/2 cycles
> * consider every 2byte/word instruction (besides move word if
> available) = 2 cycles
> * consider multiplication (if available) = 2 cycles
> * consider every load (beside load immediate "ldi" 1cylce) = 2cycles
> (+1 for prog mem)
> * pop and jump mostly = 2 cycles
> * call is basically = 2-4 cycles
> * ret is about = 4/5 cycles
> * consider every instruction (bit/bit-test, most compare, arithmetic,
> logic, some other) = 1 cycle
> * division does not exist
> or as a summary for this patch: branches and such are 2 cycles the
> rest is 1 cycle
> note that shifts are 1bit per cycle and the instructions are at least
> mostly byte based.
> also note that operations using immediate do only work with the upper
> half of registers.
All useful, but you should be giving me the summary for the things
you're changing, not asking me to do it :-) Presumably you've already
done the analysis to ensure your changes are an improvement. I'm asking
you to provide that analysis for review and archival purposes.
A quick table like
Mode Shift count Shift type original cycles (or size) new
cycles (or size)
That will make it very clear for me and anyone doing historical work in
the future what was expected here. It's OK if the cycle counts aren't
Including a testcase would be awesome as well, but isn't strictly required.
> a description for the code before my change and what changed:
> * shifts on 8bit (beside arithmetic shifts right) were optimized and
> always unrolled (only aligned with the rest of the code without actual
> * arithmetic shift 8bit and 16bit shifts were mostly optimized and
> mostly unrolled - depending on registers and Os (I added the missing
> cases there)
> * 24bit and 32bit shifts were basically not optimized at all and never
> unrolled (I added those cases and aligned the optimizer logic with the
> others. They also reuse the other shift code since they may reduce to
> those cases after a move for bigger shifts.)
> * out_shift_with_cnt provides a fallback implementation as a loop over
> shifts which may get unrolled. in case of Os to about inner_len + 3,4
> or 5 and in other cases of optimizer e.g. O2 it gets unrolled if size
> is smaller 10. see max_len (basically unchanged)
> * did not touch non const cases in this patch but may in a future
> patch for O2 and O3
> note that in case of Os the smaller code is picked which is the loop
> at least in some cases but other optimizer cases profit a lot.
> also note that it is debatable if Os needs to be that strict with size
> since the compute overhead of the loop is high with 5 per loop
> iteration/cycle- so per bit shift. A lot more cases could be covered
> with +1 or +2 more instructions.
> about plen:
> If plen is NULL the asm code gets returned.
> If plen is a pointer the code does count the instruction count which I
> guess is used (or could be used) as a rough estimate of cycles as well
> as byte code size.
> Some of the functions named this len. The 24bit functions mainly named
> this plen and used it like it is now in all functions. This is mostly
> a readability improvement.
> I am not sure how this works together with the optimizer or the rest.
> To my understanding however the functions may get called once by the
> optimizer with a length given, then to output code and potentially
> again with a len given over avr_adjust_length to return the size.
> I may be wrong about this part but as far as I can tell I did not
> change the way it operates.
> size and cycles summary:
> The asm instruction count is used as size and cycle estimate. This
> gets close to the real deal for the shifts since the instructions are
> all 1 cylce anyway and similar in byte code size.
> 8bit gets always optimized and unrolled to get max performance and
> less code size (beside shift of 6 with lower half registers used which
> is the worst case with +1 instruction).
> 16bit, 24bit and 32bit gets unrolled depending on optimizer setting -
> and registers used (see out_shift_with_cnt:max_len). So 16bit gets
> mostly optimized and unrolled in Os (see comments for plen/max_len)
> and always in O2 and such (max_len=10). Shift optimization and unroll
> for 24bit and 32bit is mostly only relevant when not optimizing for size.
> I think the move (for shifts bigger than a multiple of 8 optimization)
> should always be done if possible since this is a tiny space overhead
> but a big performance gain. Also bigger shifts on bigger variables may
> not be common any way.
>> Changes should include a ChangeLog which indicates what changed. If
>> you look at git log you will see examples of what a ChangeLog should
>> look like.
> are you fine with something like the following? one line for all
> functions then, same text?
> * config/avr/avr.cc (ashlqi3_out): improved const shifts optimization
A ChangeLog should have an entry for each function that was changed and
a brief description of what changed. Generally start them with a
capitol and end with a period. So for that one
* config/avr/avr.cc (ashlqi3_out): Improve shift by constants.
But you need an entry for each function you changed.
>> The is large enough that you need either a copyright assignment or
>> DCO certification.
>> See this page for details:
> Signed-off-by: Alexander Binzberger <email@example.com>
> Is this enough or did I miss something?
That's sufficient. Thanks.
>>> diff --git a/gcc/config/avr/avr.cc b/gcc/config/avr/avr.cc
>>> index 4ed390e4cf9..c7b70812d5c 100644
>>> --- a/gcc/config/avr/avr.cc
>>> +++ b/gcc/config/avr/avr.cc
>>> @@ -6043,9 +6043,6 @@ out_shift_with_cnt (const char *templ, rtx_insn
>>> *insn, rtx operands,
>>> op = operands;
>>> op = operands;
>>> - if (plen)
>>> - *plen = 0;
>> Doesn't this leave *plen uninitialized for the case where the shift
>> count is held in memory or a register or is an out of range
>> constant? Is this really safe?
> To my understanding this is basically how the code was working before
> - especially in the 24bit functions. It checks for NULL in avr_asm_len
> function which is why I use that now everywhere. This is why this
> looks fine to me but more eyes on this is a good idea ;)
> Since I am not sure how this plen gets used in other parts of the code
> or by the optimizer I wonder if it should get set to 0 at all at this
> place. I guess this must happen somewhere up in the call tree anyway
> and should maybe not get set there. This however is consistent with
> the rest of the code in this file as far as I can tell.
> I would be very happy if you could have a second look at this topic.
I think Georg commented that this change was incorrect as well. In
particular his comment indicated you will get garbage for the
instruction lengths, which in turn can cause runtime or linker errors.
Georg's comments should be considered authoritative for changes to the
>>> if (CONST_INT_P (operands))
>>> /* Operand 3 is a scratch register if this is a
>>> @@ -6150,96 +6147,68 @@ out_shift_with_cnt (const char *templ, rtx_insn
>>> *insn, rtx operands,
>>> /* 8bit shift left ((char)x << i) */
>>> const char *
>>> -ashlqi3_out (rtx_insn *insn, rtx operands, int *len)
>>> +ashlqi3_out (rtx_insn *insn, rtx operands, int *plen)
>>> if (CONST_INT_P (operands))
>>> - int k;
>>> - if (!len)
>>> - len = &k;
>> Isn't this wrong for the call to ashlqi3_out from avr.md? In that
>> call len/plen will be zero, which we then pass down. So the question
>> is why did you remove this code?
> About half of the code was written with plen and avr_asm_len the other
> parts like this. The plen variation was the more flexible one and made
> some changes down the road more easy so I made it use this one
But as Georg has pointed it, you've changed the behavior of the code,
likely creating problems as a result.
>> The patch as-is is relatively large and can easily be broken down
>> into more manageable chunks. I would suggest a patch for each mode.
>> ie, one which changes QImode shifts, another for HImode shifts,
>> another for PSImode shifts. etc. It may seem like more work, but by
>> breaking it down reviewers can take action on each patch
>> individually. So for example its relatively easy to work through the
>> QImode changes and those could go in fairly quick while the PSImode
>> changes will require considerably more time to review.
> Due to the plen change (needed for some readability improvements, more
> consistent code but also more simple changes) and other minor
> readability improvements I decided to go with one patch for all const
> Are you sure you want this extra work and overhead?
Yes. It's standard procedure. It also means that if there are parts of
the work that are non-controversial, then they can go in immediately
while other parts are refined. The SImode and PSImode changes in
particular will require a lot of time to evaluate for correctness.
> Would you prefer them as a set of patches/mails (with patch 1/x) or
> single patch mails?
Most folks use [1/x] as a series of patches.
> Maybe as github pull requests with multiple commits?
One day I'd love to be able to accept pull requests rather than having
to do everything via email :-) BUt we're not really set up for that yet.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-10-29 4:52 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-10-04 17:06 Alexander Binzberger
2022-10-12 17:57 ` Jeff Law
2022-10-15 12:08 ` A. Binzberger
2022-10-29 4:52 ` Jeff Law [this message]
2022-10-15 16:10 Georg Johann Lay
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).