mirror of
https://github.com/golang/go
synced 2024-11-23 20:10:08 -07:00
a0453a180f
There are a few cases where this can be useful. Apart from the obvious
(and silly)
100*n + 200*n
where we generate one IMUL instead of two, consider:
15*n + 31*n
Currently, the compiler strength-reduces both imuls, generating:
0x0000 00000 MOVQ "".n+8(SP), AX
0x0005 00005 MOVQ AX, CX
0x0008 00008 SHLQ $4, AX
0x000c 00012 SUBQ CX, AX
0x000f 00015 MOVQ CX, DX
0x0012 00018 SHLQ $5, CX
0x0016 00022 SUBQ DX, CX
0x0019 00025 ADDQ CX, AX
0x001c 00028 MOVQ AX, "".~r1+16(SP)
0x0021 00033 RET
But combining the imuls is both faster and shorter:
0x0000 00000 MOVQ "".n+8(SP), AX
0x0005 00005 IMULQ $46, AX
0x0009 00009 MOVQ AX, "".~r1+16(SP)
0x000e 00014 RET
even without strength-reduction.
Moreover, consider:
5*n + 7*(n+1) + 11*(n+2)
We already have a rule that rewrites 7(n+1) into 7n+7, so the
generated code (without imuls merging) looks like this:
0x0000 00000 MOVQ "".n+8(SP), AX
0x0005 00005 LEAQ (AX)(AX*4), CX
0x0009 00009 MOVQ AX, DX
0x000c 00012 NEGQ AX
0x000f 00015 LEAQ (AX)(DX*8), AX
0x0013 00019 ADDQ CX, AX
0x0016 00022 LEAQ (DX)(CX*2), CX
0x001a 00026 LEAQ 29(AX)(CX*1), AX
0x001f 00031 MOVQ AX, "".~r1+16(SP)
But with imuls merging, the 5n, 7n and 11n factors get merged, and the
generated code looks like this:
0x0000 00000 MOVQ "".n+8(SP), AX
0x0005 00005 IMULQ $23, AX
0x0009 00009 ADDQ $29, AX
0x000d 00013 MOVQ AX, "".~r1+16(SP)
0x0012 00018 RET
Which is both faster and shorter; that's also the exact same code that
clang and the intel c compiler generate for the above expression.
Change-Id: Ib4d5503f05d2f2efe31a1be14e2fe6cac33730a9
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/55143
Reviewed-by: Keith Randall <khr@golang.org>
82 lines
2.0 KiB
Go
82 lines
2.0 KiB
Go
// runoutput
|
|
|
|
// Copyright 2017 The Go Authors. All rights reserved.
|
|
// Use of this source code is governed by a BSD-style
|
|
// license that can be found in the LICENSE file.
|
|
|
|
package main
|
|
|
|
import "fmt"
|
|
|
|
// Check that expressions like (c*n + d*(n+k)) get correctly merged by
|
|
// the compiler into (c+d)*n + d*k (with c+d and d*k computed at
|
|
// compile time).
|
|
//
|
|
// The merging is performed by a combination of the multiplication
|
|
// merge rules
|
|
// (c*n + d*n) -> (c+d)*n
|
|
// and the distributive multiplication rules
|
|
// c * (d+x) -> c*d + c*x
|
|
|
|
// Generate a MergeTest that looks like this:
|
|
//
|
|
// a8, b8 = m1*n8 + m2*(n8+k), (m1+m2)*n8 + m2*k
|
|
// if a8 != b8 {
|
|
// // print error msg and panic
|
|
// }
|
|
func makeMergeTest(m1, m2, k int, size string) string {
|
|
|
|
model := " a" + size + ", b" + size
|
|
model += fmt.Sprintf(" = %%d*n%s + %%d*(n%s+%%d), (%%d+%%d)*n%s + (%%d*%%d)", size, size, size)
|
|
|
|
test := fmt.Sprintf(model, m1, m2, k, m1, m2, m2, k)
|
|
test += fmt.Sprintf(`
|
|
if a%s != b%s {
|
|
fmt.Printf("MergeTest(%d, %d, %d, %s) failed\n")
|
|
fmt.Printf("%%d != %%d\n", a%s, b%s)
|
|
panic("FAIL")
|
|
}
|
|
`, size, size, m1, m2, k, size, size, size)
|
|
return test + "\n"
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
func makeAllSizes(m1, m2, k int) string {
|
|
var tests string
|
|
tests += makeMergeTest(m1, m2, k, "8")
|
|
tests += makeMergeTest(m1, m2, k, "16")
|
|
tests += makeMergeTest(m1, m2, k, "32")
|
|
tests += makeMergeTest(m1, m2, k, "64")
|
|
tests += "\n"
|
|
return tests
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
func main() {
|
|
fmt.Println(`package main
|
|
|
|
import "fmt"
|
|
|
|
var n8 int8 = 42
|
|
var n16 int16 = 42
|
|
var n32 int32 = 42
|
|
var n64 int64 = 42
|
|
|
|
func main() {
|
|
var a8, b8 int8
|
|
var a16, b16 int16
|
|
var a32, b32 int32
|
|
var a64, b64 int64
|
|
`)
|
|
|
|
fmt.Println(makeAllSizes(03, 05, 0)) // 3*n + 5*n
|
|
fmt.Println(makeAllSizes(17, 33, 0))
|
|
fmt.Println(makeAllSizes(80, 45, 0))
|
|
fmt.Println(makeAllSizes(32, 64, 0))
|
|
|
|
fmt.Println(makeAllSizes(7, 11, +1)) // 7*n + 11*(n+1)
|
|
fmt.Println(makeAllSizes(9, 13, +2))
|
|
fmt.Println(makeAllSizes(11, 16, -1))
|
|
fmt.Println(makeAllSizes(17, 9, -2))
|
|
|
|
fmt.Println("}")
|
|
}
|