* GCC target_clone support @ 2017-05-05 18:19 Michael Meissner 2017-05-05 18:45 ` GCC target_clone support (functionality question) Michael Meissner ` (2 more replies) 0 siblings, 3 replies; 7+ messages in thread From: Michael Meissner @ 2017-05-05 18:19 UTC (permalink / raw) To: GCC mailing list, Segher Boessenkool, David Edelsohn, Jan Hubicka, Uros Bizjak, Kirill Yukhin, Richard Biener, Richard Henderson, Jakub Jelinek, Richard Earnshaw, Marcus Shawcroft, Nick Clifton, Ramana Radhakrishnan, Bernd Schmidt, Jeff Law, Hartmut Penner, Ulrich Weigand, Andreas Krebbel, Evgeny Stupachenko, Michael Meissner I'm in the middle of adding support for the target_clone attribute to the PowerPC. At the moment, the x86_64/i386 port is the only port that supports target_clone. I added the arm/s390 port maintainers to this query, because those ports might also consider supporting target_clones in the future. In doing the work, I noticed that some of the functions called by the target hooks that were fairly generic, and we might want to move these functions into common code? Would people object if I put out a patch to move these functions to common code? I also have a question on the functionality of target_clone that I will address in a separate message. So far, the list of generic code that could be moved to common code to allow other ports to add target_clone support include: make_resolver_func: Make the resolver function decl to dispatch the versions of a multi-versioned function, DEFAULT_DECL. Create an empty basic block in the resolver and store the pointer in EMPTY_BB. Return the decl of the resolver function. make_dispatcher_decl: Make a dispatcher declaration for the multi-versioned function DECL. Calls to DECL function will be replaced with calls to the dispatcher by the front-end. Return the decl created. is_function_default_version: Returns true if decl is multi-versioned and DECL is the default function, that is it is not tagged with target specific optimization. attr_strcmp: Comparator function to be used in qsort routine to sort attribute specification strings to "target". sorted_attr_string: ARGLIST is the argument to target attribute. This function tokenizes the comma separated arguments, sorts them and returns a string which is a unique identifier for the comma separated arguments. It also replaces non-identifier characters "=,-" with "_". <xxx>_function_versions: This function returns true if FN1 and FN2 are versions of the same function, that is, the target strings of the function decls are different. This assumes that FN1 and FN2 have the same signature. This is the TARGET_OPTION_FUNCTION_VERSIONS target hook, and it is the same between the x86 and ppc. -- Michael Meissner, IBM IBM, M/S 2506R, 550 King Street, Littleton, MA 01460-6245, USA email: meissner@linux.vnet.ibm.com, phone: +1 (978) 899-4797 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: GCC target_clone support (functionality question) 2017-05-05 18:19 GCC target_clone support Michael Meissner @ 2017-05-05 18:45 ` Michael Meissner [not found] ` <CAOvf_xzMMbbQ+adZ+hWYtxACn_6yS50nhhcVYeBuPnUKZNPc2g@mail.gmail.com> [not found] ` <87tw4y7adg.fsf@linaro.org> 2017-05-05 18:52 ` GCC target_clone support Michael Meissner 2017-05-05 20:17 ` Jeff Law 2 siblings, 2 replies; 7+ messages in thread From: Michael Meissner @ 2017-05-05 18:45 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Michael Meissner, GCC mailing list, Segher Boessenkool, David Edelsohn, Jan Hubicka, Uros Bizjak, Kirill Yukhin, Richard Biener, Richard Henderson, Jakub Jelinek, Richard Earnshaw, Marcus Shawcroft, Nick Clifton, Ramana Radhakrishnan, Bernd Schmidt, Jeff Law, Hartmut Penner, Ulrich Weigand, Andreas Krebbel, Evgeny Stupachenko This message is separated from the question about moving code, as it is a questions about the functionality of target_clone support. Right now it looks like target_clone only generates the ifunc handler if there is a call to the function in the object file. It does not generate the ifunc handler if there is no call. For the default function, it generates the normal name. This means that any function that calls the function from a different object module will only get the standard function. From a library and user perspective, I think this is wrong. Instead the default function should be generated with a different name, and the ifunc function should list the standard name. Then you don't have to change all of the other calls in the object file, the normal ifunc handling will handle it. It also means you can more easily put this function in a library and automatically call the appropriate version. Do people agree with this assessment, and should I change the code to do this (for both x86 nd ppc targets)? If not, what is the reason for the objection? Consider mvc5.c from the testsuite: /* { dg-do compile } */ /* { dg-require-ifunc "" } */ /* { dg-options "-fno-inline" } */ /* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times "foo.ifunc" 6 } } */ __attribute__((target_clones("default","avx","avx2"))) int foo () { return 10; } __attribute__((target_clones("default","avx","avx2"))) int bar () { return -foo (); } It generates: .file "mvc5.c" .text .p2align 4,,15 .globl foo .type foo, @function foo: movl $10, %eax ret .type foo.avx.2, @function foo.avx.2: movl $10, %eax ret .type foo.avx2.3, @function foo.avx2.3: movl $10, %eax ret .weak foo.resolver .type foo.resolver, @function foo.resolver: subq $8, %rsp call __cpu_indicator_init movl __cpu_model+12(%rip), %eax testb $4, %ah je .L8 movl $foo.avx2.3, %eax addq $8, %rsp ret .L8: testb $2, %ah movl $foo.avx.2, %edx movl $foo, %eax cmovne %rdx, %rax addq $8, %rsp ret .type foo.ifunc, @gnu_indirect_function .set foo.ifunc,foo.resolver // Note these functions are not referenced .type bar.avx2.1, @function bar.avx2.1: subq $8, %rsp xorl %eax, %eax call foo.ifunc addq $8, %rsp negl %eax ret .type bar.avx.0, @function bar.avx.0: subq $8, %rsp xorl %eax, %eax call foo.ifunc addq $8, %rsp negl %eax ret .type bar, @function // Note how it calls foo.ifunc instead of foo. bar: subq $8, %rsp xorl %eax, %eax call foo.ifunc addq $8, %rsp negl %eax ret Now, if I remove the bar call, and just leave foo it generates: .type foo, @function foo: movl $10, %eax ret .type foo.avx.0, @function foo.avx.0: movl $10, %eax ret .type foo.avx2.1, @function foo.avx2.1: movl $10, %eax ret Note, it does not generate the resolver at all. -- Michael Meissner, IBM IBM, M/S 2506R, 550 King Street, Littleton, MA 01460-6245, USA email: meissner@linux.vnet.ibm.com, phone: +1 (978) 899-4797 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <CAOvf_xzMMbbQ+adZ+hWYtxACn_6yS50nhhcVYeBuPnUKZNPc2g@mail.gmail.com>]
* Re: GCC target_clone support (functionality question) [not found] ` <CAOvf_xzMMbbQ+adZ+hWYtxACn_6yS50nhhcVYeBuPnUKZNPc2g@mail.gmail.com> @ 2017-05-05 19:48 ` Michael Meissner [not found] ` <CAOvf_xyeUdFnfXMszOb8ZcEava+pRmzTP2naErd5U8sr2E1xpw@mail.gmail.com> 0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread From: Michael Meissner @ 2017-05-05 19:48 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Evgeny Stupachenko Cc: Michael Meissner, GCC mailing list, Segher Boessenkool, David Edelsohn, Jan Hubicka, Uros Bizjak, Kirill Yukhin, Richard Biener, Richard Henderson, Jakub Jelinek, Richard Earnshaw, Marcus Shawcroft, Nick Clifton, Ramana Radhakrishnan, Bernd Schmidt, Jeff Law, Hartmut Penner, Ulrich Weigand, Andreas Krebbel On Fri, May 05, 2017 at 12:32:03PM -0700, Evgeny Stupachenko wrote: > Hi Michael, > > On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 11:45 AM, Michael Meissner > <meissner@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > > This message is separated from the question about moving code, as it is a > > questions about the functionality of target_clone support. > > > > Right now it looks like target_clone only generates the ifunc handler if there > > is a call to the function in the object file. It does not generate the ifunc > > handler if there is no call. > > > > For the default function, it generates the normal name. This means that any > > function that calls the function from a different object module will only get > > the standard function. From a library and user perspective, I think this is > > wrong. Instead the default function should be generated with a different name, > > and the ifunc function should list the standard name. Then you don't have to > > change all of the other calls in the object file, the normal ifunc handling > > will handle it. It also means you can more easily put this function in a > > library and automatically call the appropriate version. > > I think library issue could be resolved using special headers. You can > look into GLIBC, there should be similar technique. > When you call resolver from initial (default) function, you make an > assumption that ifunc is supported. Yes, ifunc should be required before you even consider using target_clone. What I'm trying to do is make it easier for people to add target clones to their code, but not having to go through using special headers or other gunk. I want them to be able to add just the target clone line, and everything will work. That means in the current case, the default case should be renamed to <function>.default, and what is <function>.ifunc should become <function>. -- Michael Meissner, IBM IBM, M/S 2506R, 550 King Street, Littleton, MA 01460-6245, USA email: meissner@linux.vnet.ibm.com, phone: +1 (978) 899-4797 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <CAOvf_xyeUdFnfXMszOb8ZcEava+pRmzTP2naErd5U8sr2E1xpw@mail.gmail.com>]
* Re: GCC target_clone support (functionality question) [not found] ` <CAOvf_xyeUdFnfXMszOb8ZcEava+pRmzTP2naErd5U8sr2E1xpw@mail.gmail.com> @ 2017-05-05 20:50 ` Michael Meissner 0 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread From: Michael Meissner @ 2017-05-05 20:50 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Evgeny Stupachenko Cc: Michael Meissner, Segher Boessenkool, David Edelsohn, Jan Hubicka, Uros Bizjak, Kirill Yukhin, Richard Biener, Richard Henderson, Jakub Jelinek, Richard Earnshaw, Marcus Shawcroft, Nick Clifton, Ramana Radhakrishnan, Bernd Schmidt, Jeff Law, Hartmut Penner, Ulrich Weigand, Andreas Krebbel, GCC mailing list On Fri, May 05, 2017 at 01:38:03PM -0700, Evgeny Stupachenko wrote: > On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 12:48 PM, Michael Meissner > <meissner@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > > On Fri, May 05, 2017 at 12:32:03PM -0700, Evgeny Stupachenko wrote: > >> Hi Michael, > >> > >> On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 11:45 AM, Michael Meissner > >> <meissner@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > >> > This message is separated from the question about moving code, as it is a > >> > questions about the functionality of target_clone support. > >> > > >> > Right now it looks like target_clone only generates the ifunc handler if there > >> > is a call to the function in the object file. It does not generate the ifunc > >> > handler if there is no call. > >> > > >> > For the default function, it generates the normal name. This means that any > >> > function that calls the function from a different object module will only get > >> > the standard function. From a library and user perspective, I think this is > >> > wrong. Instead the default function should be generated with a different name, > >> > and the ifunc function should list the standard name. Then you don't have to > >> > change all of the other calls in the object file, the normal ifunc handling > >> > will handle it. It also means you can more easily put this function in a > >> > library and automatically call the appropriate version. > >> > >> I think library issue could be resolved using special headers. You can > >> look into GLIBC, there should be similar technique. > >> When you call resolver from initial (default) function, you make an > >> assumption that ifunc is supported. > > > > Yes, ifunc should be required before you even consider using target_clone. > > If function foo() called using regular name it usually means that > there is no information about ifunc support. The whole point of ifunc is that the caller should not need to know whether a function is a normal function or an ifunc function. The linker handles it all making it go through the PLT like it does for shared library functions. I don't understand what you mean by this: > Another object file which > is built with target_clones will have foo() definition with > foo.resolver inside. And for users outside of GLIBC, it is more cumbersome to have to have the whole infrastructure to build separate versions of the file, and then write separate ifunc declaration. -- Michael Meissner, IBM IBM, M/S 2506R, 550 King Street, Littleton, MA 01460-6245, USA email: meissner@linux.vnet.ibm.com, phone: +1 (978) 899-4797 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <87tw4y7adg.fsf@linaro.org>]
* Re: GCC target_clone support (functionality question) [not found] ` <87tw4y7adg.fsf@linaro.org> @ 2017-05-08 22:14 ` Jeff Law 0 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread From: Jeff Law @ 2017-05-08 22:14 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Michael Meissner, GCC mailing list, Segher Boessenkool, David Edelsohn, Jan Hubicka, Uros Bizjak, Kirill Yukhin, Richard Biener, Richard Henderson, Jakub Jelinek, Richard Earnshaw, Marcus Shawcroft, Nick Clifton, Ramana Radhakrishnan, Bernd Schmidt, Hartmut Penner, Ulrich Weigand, Andreas Krebbel, Evgeny Stupachenko, richard.sandiford On 05/06/2017 12:44 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote: > Michael Meissner <meissner@linux.vnet.ibm.com> writes: >> This message is separated from the question about moving code, as it is a >> questions about the functionality of target_clone support. >> >> Right now it looks like target_clone only generates the ifunc handler if there >> is a call to the function in the object file. It does not generate the ifunc >> handler if there is no call. >> >> For the default function, it generates the normal name. This means that any >> function that calls the function from a different object module will only get >> the standard function. From a library and user perspective, I think this is >> wrong. Instead the default function should be generated with a different name, >> and the ifunc function should list the standard name. Then you don't have to >> change all of the other calls in the object file, the normal ifunc handling >> will handle it. It also means you can more easily put this function in a >> library and automatically call the appropriate version. > > Yeah, that sounds much more useful. One thing on my wish list is to > support target_clone for Advanced SIMD vs. SVE on AArch64 (although > it's unlikely that'll happen in the GCC 8 timeframe). I'd naively > assumed it would already work in the way you suggested. Likewise. jeff ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: GCC target_clone support 2017-05-05 18:19 GCC target_clone support Michael Meissner 2017-05-05 18:45 ` GCC target_clone support (functionality question) Michael Meissner @ 2017-05-05 18:52 ` Michael Meissner 2017-05-05 20:17 ` Jeff Law 2 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread From: Michael Meissner @ 2017-05-05 18:52 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Michael Meissner Cc: GCC mailing list, Segher Boessenkool, David Edelsohn, Jan Hubicka, Uros Bizjak, Kirill Yukhin, Richard Biener, Richard Henderson, Jakub Jelinek, Richard Earnshaw, Marcus Shawcroft, Nick Clifton, Ramana Radhakrishnan, Bernd Schmidt, Jeff Law, Hartmut Penner, Ulrich Weigand, Andreas Krebbel, Evgeny Stupachenko A minor feature that also should be considered is if you have two clone functions, one that calls the other, we should optimize the call to avoid using the indirect call setup by ifunc. I.e. extern __attribute__((target_clones("default","avx","avx2"))) int caller (); extern __attribute__((target_clones("default","avx","avx2"))) int callee (); __attribute__((target_clones("default","avx","avx2"))) int caller (void) { return -callee (); } __attribute__((target_clones("default","avx","avx2"))) int callee (void) { return 10; } I.e. caller.avx should call callee.avx, not callee (or callee.ifunc), and caller.avx2 should call callee.avx2. Do people think this is useful? -- Michael Meissner, IBM IBM, M/S 2506R, 550 King Street, Littleton, MA 01460-6245, USA email: meissner@linux.vnet.ibm.com, phone: +1 (978) 899-4797 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: GCC target_clone support 2017-05-05 18:19 GCC target_clone support Michael Meissner 2017-05-05 18:45 ` GCC target_clone support (functionality question) Michael Meissner 2017-05-05 18:52 ` GCC target_clone support Michael Meissner @ 2017-05-05 20:17 ` Jeff Law 2 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread From: Jeff Law @ 2017-05-05 20:17 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Michael Meissner, GCC mailing list, Segher Boessenkool, David Edelsohn, Jan Hubicka, Uros Bizjak, Kirill Yukhin, Richard Biener, Richard Henderson, Jakub Jelinek, Richard Earnshaw, Marcus Shawcroft, Nick Clifton, Ramana Radhakrishnan, Bernd Schmidt, Hartmut Penner, Ulrich Weigand, Andreas Krebbel, Evgeny Stupachenko On 05/05/2017 12:18 PM, Michael Meissner wrote: > I'm in the middle of adding support for the target_clone attribute to the > PowerPC. At the moment, the x86_64/i386 port is the only port that supports > target_clone. I added the arm/s390 port maintainers to this query, because > those ports might also consider supporting target_clones in the future. > > In doing the work, I noticed that some of the functions called by the target > hooks that were fairly generic, and we might want to move these functions into > common code? Would people object if I put out a patch to move these functions > to common code? Sounds wise to me -- as you know its not unusual to find commonality when a feature is enabled on a new target. > > I also have a question on the functionality of target_clone that I will address > in a separate message. > > So far, the list of generic code that could be moved to common code to allow > other ports to add target_clone support include:Please consider this class of changes pre-approved. There's no reason to wait for review as you move this stuff around and generalize it slightly. jeff ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2017-05-08 22:14 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 7+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2017-05-05 18:19 GCC target_clone support Michael Meissner 2017-05-05 18:45 ` GCC target_clone support (functionality question) Michael Meissner [not found] ` <CAOvf_xzMMbbQ+adZ+hWYtxACn_6yS50nhhcVYeBuPnUKZNPc2g@mail.gmail.com> 2017-05-05 19:48 ` Michael Meissner [not found] ` <CAOvf_xyeUdFnfXMszOb8ZcEava+pRmzTP2naErd5U8sr2E1xpw@mail.gmail.com> 2017-05-05 20:50 ` Michael Meissner [not found] ` <87tw4y7adg.fsf@linaro.org> 2017-05-08 22:14 ` Jeff Law 2017-05-05 18:52 ` GCC target_clone support Michael Meissner 2017-05-05 20:17 ` Jeff Law
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).