From: "Stefan Kanthak" <stefan.kanthak@nexgo.de>
To: "Rich Felker" <dalias@libc.org>
Cc: "Szabolcs Nagy" <nsz@port70.net>, <musl@lists.openwall.com>
Subject: Re: [musl] [PATCH] Properly simplified nextafter()
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2021 17:44:28 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <7143269BEC424DE6A3B0218C4268C4C8@H270> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210811024010.GA13220@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
Rich Felker <dalias@libc.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 11, 2021 at 12:53:37AM +0200, Stefan Kanthak wrote:
>> Szabolcs Nagy <nsz@port70.net> wrote:
>>
>>>* Stefan Kanthak <stefan.kanthak@nexgo.de> [2021-08-10 08:23:46 +0200]:
>>>> <https://git.musl-libc.org/cgit/musl/plain/src/math/nextafter.c>
>>>> has quite some superfluous statements:
>>>>
>>>> 1. there's absolutely no need for 2 uint64_t holding |x| and |y|;
>>>> 2. IEEE-754 specifies -0.0 == +0.0, so (x == y) is equivalent to
>>>> (ax == 0) && (ay == 0): the latter 2 tests can be removed;
>>>
>>> you replaced 4 int cmps with 4 float cmps (among other things).
>>
>> and hinted that the result of the second pair of comparisions is
>> already known from the first pair.
>>
>>> it's target dependent if float compares are fast or not.
>>
>> It's also target dependent whether the floating-point registers
>> can be accessed by integer instructions, or need to be copied:
>> some win, some loose!
>> Just let the compiler/optimizer do its job!
>
> The values have been copied already to perform isnan,
NOT necessary: the compiler may have inlined isnan() and perform
the test for example using FXAM, FUCOM or FUCOMI on i386, or
UCOMISD on AMD64, without copying the arguments.
I recommend to inspect the code GCC generates for AMD64, for example.
> so continuing to access them does not incur any further cost.
Non sequitur: see above.
[...]
>> 0. Doesn't musl provide target specific routines for targets with
>> soft FP?
>
> No, quite the opposite. Targets with hard fp and native insns for
> particular ops have target-specific versions,
That's why I assumed that this may also be the case for soft FP.
> but in general musl strongly prefers use of common implementation
> across all targets when there is not an obvious [nearly-]single-insn
> candidate for a specialized version.
That's one of the reason why I submitted this patch: FP hardware is
mainstream.
>> 1. If not: the compiler knows the target ABI and SHOULD generate
>> the proper integer comparisions there.
>
> Here it would require the compiler to recognize that the nan case was
> already ruled out, and to special-case ±0 comparison on the
> representation. Of course this is possible in theory, but it's almost
> surely not happening now or any time soon. I'm pretty sure soft float
> targets just end up calling the libgcc function for floating point
> comparison if you do that.
| if (isnan(x) || isnan(y))
| return x + y;
The 4 instructions I mentioned above set flags for all cases: see
below.
>> The code is of course smaller ... but not as small and fast as a
>> proper i386 or AMD64 assembly implementation ... which I can
>> post upon request.
>
> Full asm functions are not wanted; it's something we're trying to get
> rid of in favor of just using very small/single-insn asm statements
> with proper constraints, where it's sufficiently beneficial to have
> asm at all. But I'm not even clear how you could make this function
> more efficient with asm. The overall logic would be exactly the same
> as the C. Maybe on x86_64 there'd be some SSE instructions to let you
> elide a few things?
No, just what the instruction set offers: 23 instructions in 72 bytes.
nextafter:
comisd xmm1, xmm0 # CF = (from > to)
jp .Lmxcsr # from or to INDEFINITE?
je .Lequal # from = to?
sbb rdx, rdx # rdx = (from > to) ? -1 : 0
movq rcx, xmm0 # rcx = from
mov rax, rcx
add rax, rax # CF = (from & -0.0)
jz .Lzero # from = ±0.0?
.Lstep:
sbb rax, rax # rax = (from < 0.0) ? -1 : 0
xor rax, rdx # rax = (from < 0.0) ^ (from > to) ? -1 : 0
or rax, 1 # rax = (from < 0.0) ^ (from > to) ? -1 : 1
add rax, rcx # rax = nextafter(from, to)
movq xmm0, rax # xmm0 = nextafter(from, to)
xorpd xmm1, xmm1
.Lmxcsr:
addsd xmm0, xmm1 # set MXCSR flags
ret
.Lequal:
movsd xmm0, xmm1 # xmm0 = to
ret
.Lzero:
movmskpd eax, xmm1 # rax = (to & -0.0) ? 0b?1 : 0b?0
or eax, 2 # rax = (to & -0.0) ? 0b11 : 0b10
ror rax, 1 # rax = (to & -0.0) ? 0x8000000000000001 : 1
movq xmm0, rax # xmm0 = (to & -0.0) ? -0x1.0p-1074 : 0x1.0p-1074
ret
GCC generates here at least 12 instructions more, also longer ones,
including 2 movabs to load 0x8000000000000000 and 0x7FFFFFFFFFFFFFFF,
so the code is more than 50% fatter, mixes integer SSE and FP SSE
instructions which incur 2 cycles penalty on many Intel CPUs, with
WAY TOO MANY not so predictable (un)conditional branches.
JFTR: it's almost always easy to beat the compiler!
Stefan
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-08-11 15:49 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 34+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-08-10 6:23 Stefan Kanthak
2021-08-10 21:34 ` Szabolcs Nagy
2021-08-10 22:53 ` Stefan Kanthak
2021-08-11 2:40 ` Rich Felker
2021-08-11 15:44 ` Stefan Kanthak [this message]
2021-08-11 16:09 ` Rich Felker
2021-08-11 16:50 ` Stefan Kanthak
2021-08-11 17:57 ` Rich Felker
2021-08-11 22:16 ` Szabolcs Nagy
2021-08-11 22:43 ` Stefan Kanthak
2021-08-12 0:59 ` Rich Felker
2021-08-11 8:23 ` Szabolcs Nagy
2021-08-13 12:04 ` [musl] [PATCH #2] " Stefan Kanthak
2021-08-13 15:59 ` Rich Felker
2021-08-13 18:30 ` Stefan Kanthak
2021-08-14 4:07 ` Damian McGuckin
2021-08-14 22:45 ` Szabolcs Nagy
2021-08-14 23:46 ` Szabolcs Nagy
2021-08-15 7:04 ` Stefan Kanthak
2021-08-15 7:46 ` Ariadne Conill
2021-08-15 13:59 ` Rich Felker
2021-08-15 14:57 ` Ariadne Conill
2021-08-15 8:24 ` Damian McGuckin
2021-08-15 14:03 ` Rich Felker
2021-08-15 15:10 ` Damian McGuckin
2021-08-15 14:56 ` Szabolcs Nagy
2021-08-15 15:19 ` Stefan Kanthak
2021-08-15 15:48 ` Rich Felker
2021-08-15 16:29 ` Stefan Kanthak
2021-08-15 16:49 ` Rich Felker
2021-08-15 20:52 ` Stefan Kanthak
2021-08-15 21:48 ` Rich Felker
2021-08-15 15:52 ` Ariadne Conill
2021-08-15 16:09 ` Rich Felker
Reply instructions:
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:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=7143269BEC424DE6A3B0218C4268C4C8@H270 \
--to=stefan.kanthak@nexgo.de \
--cc=dalias@libc.org \
--cc=musl@lists.openwall.com \
--cc=nsz@port70.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* 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.
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox
https://git.vuxu.org/mirror/musl/
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 NNTP newsgroup(s).