On 23/06/21 14:16 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>On 23/06/21 12:45 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>>On 21/05/21 19:44 +0100, Cassio Neri via Libstdc++ wrote:
>>>I've checked the generated code and the compiler doesn't figure out
>>>the logic. I added a comment to explain.
>>>
>>>(Revised patch below and attached.)
>>>
>>>Best wishes,
>>>Cassio.
>>>
>>>---
>>>
>>>Simple change to std::chrono::year::is_leap. If a year is multiple of 100,
>>>then it's divisible by 400 if and only if it's divisible by 16. The latter
>>>allows for better code generation.
>>>
>>>Tested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu.
>>>
>>>libstdc++-v3/ChangeLog:
>>>libstdc++-v3/ChangeLog:
>>>
>>>  * include/std/chrono:
>>>
>>>diff --git a/libstdc++-v3/include/std/chrono b/libstdc++-v3/include/std/chrono
>>>index 4631a727d73..85aa0379432 100644
>>>--- a/libstdc++-v3/include/std/chrono
>>>+++ b/libstdc++-v3/include/std/chrono
>>>@@ -1612,7 +1612,9 @@ _GLIBCXX_BEGIN_NAMESPACE_VERSION
>>>   constexpr uint32_t __offset       = __max_dividend / 2 / 100 * 100;
>>>   const bool __is_multiple_of_100
>>>     = __multiplier * (_M_y + __offset) < __bound;
>>>-    return (!__is_multiple_of_100 || _M_y % 400 == 0) && _M_y % 4 == 0;
>>>+    // Usually we test _M_y % 400 == 0 but, when it's already known that
>>>+    // _M_y%100 == 0, then _M_y % 400==0 is equivalent to _M_y % 16 == 0.
>>                 ^^
>>                 N.B. this comment should say !=
>>
>>>+    return (!__is_multiple_of_100 || _M_y % 16 == 0) && _M_y % 4 == 0;
>>
>>If y % 16 == 0 then y % 4 == 0 too. So we could write that as:
>>
>> return (!__is_multiple_of_100 && _M_y % 4 == 0) || _M_y % 16 == 0;
>>
>>This seems to perform even better over a wide range of inputs, can you
>>confirm that result with your own tests?
>>
>>However, my microbenchmark also shows that the simplistic code using
>>y%100 often performs even better than the current code calculating
>>__is_multiple_of_100 to avoid the modulus operation. So maybe my tests
>>are bad.
>>
>>My rearranged expression above is equivalent to:
>>
>> return _M_y % (__is_multiple_of_100 ? 16 : 4) == 0;
>>
>>which can be written without branches:
>>
>> return _M_y % (4 << (2 * __is_multiple_of_100)) == 0;
>>
>>However, both Clang and GCC already remove the branch for (x ? 16 : 4)
>>and the conditional expression produces slightly smaller code with 
>>GCC (see https://gcc.gnu.org/PR101179 regarding that). But neither 
>>of
>>these seems to improve compared to my first rearrangement above.
>
>This version from Ulrich Drepper produces the smallest code of all
>(and also performs well, if not the absolute fastest) in my
>benchmarks:
>
>  return (y & (__is_multiple_of_100 ? 15 : 3)) == 0;

Here's what I've committed. Tested x86_64-linux and powerpc64le-linux.
Pushed to trunk.