128 bit arithmetic --- inefficient logic test

[sqrmax]

Bugzilla Link	50197
Version	trunk
OS	All
Attachments	Sample code
CC	@nerh,@LebedevRI,@RKSimon,@rotateright

Extended Description

See attached code, compiled with -O2. The condition inside the while () test is unnecessarily evaluated with a 128 bit shift instruction,

square:                                 # @square
        mov     rax, rdi
.LBB0_1:                                # =>This Inner Loop Header: Depth=1
        add     rax, 1
        adc     rsi, 0
        mov     rcx, rsi
        shld    rcx, rax, 4
        mov     rdx, rsi
        shr     rdx, 60
        or      rdx, rcx
        jne     .LBB0_1
        ret

even though a 64 bit shift instruction suffices. However, changing || to | in the logic condition yields the more efficient code below.

square:                                 # @square
        mov     rax, rdi
.LBB0_1:                                # =>This Inner Loop Header: Depth=1
        add     rax, 1
        adc     rsi, 0
        mov     rcx, rax
        shr     rcx, 60
        or      rcx, rsi
        jne     .LBB0_1
        ret

Found with clang-10 on Ubuntu 20.04 LTS, verified for clang 10, 11, and trunk using godbolt. Note that gcc -O2 handles both of these cases emitting the more efficient code.

[sqrmax]

assigned to @nerh

[RKSimon]

Current Codegen: https://godbolt.org/z/bWvGK5vhT

I 'd like to fix this issue if there are no objections.

LLVM mid-end generates comparison of j with 1<<60 for loop's condition and following DAG node is created for it:

    t19: i1 = setcc t7, Constant:i128<1152921504606846976>, setult:ch

Then it is combined into following nodes:

    t33: i128 = srl t7, Constant:i64<60>
  t40: i1 = setcc t33, Constant:i128<0>, setne:ch

That are legalized into:

          t45: i64 = srl t41, Constant:i64<60>
          t44: i64 = shl t42, Constant:i64<4>
        t46: i64 = or t45, t44
        t47: i64 = srl t42, Constant:i64<60>
      t49: i64 = or t46, t47
    t48: i8 = setcc t49, Constant:i64<0>, setne:ch

And finally combined into:

      t53: i64 = fshl t42, t41, Constant:i64<4>
      t47: i64 = srl t42, Constant:i64<60>
    t49: i64 = or t53, t47
  t48: i8 = setcc t49, Constant:i64<0>, setne:ch

I see several ways to get rid of FSHL:

1. Hook into DAGTypeLegalizer::ExpandShiftByConstant, check that SRL has only one use and it's SetCC Eq/Ne 0, and then skip unnecessary shifts;
2. Explicitly match expanded SRL and combine it into (setcc (or (srl a), b, C), 0, setne);
3. Add several peepholes into DAGCombiner to iteratively combine:
   a) (or (fshl a, b, C1), (srl a, C2)) => (or (rotl a), (srl b)) // it is profitable disregard setcc optimization because rotations are usually faster than funnel shifts
   b) (setcc (or (rotl a), b), 0, setne) => (setcc (or a, b), 0, setne)

Personally I more into 3rd approach as it will work not only for the single case with setcc, but I'm not quite sure if patterns that could be combined by it arise frequently enough to make that approach reasonable to implement.

Note that the issue is not only about 128-bit variables and the same suboptimal code will be emitted for 64-bit variable on 32-bit architectures (for Aarch32 in particular).

Review: https://reviews.llvm.org/D111530

[RKSimon]

Current Codegen:

slow128(unsigned __int128):                            # @slow128(unsigned __int128)
        movq    %rdi, %rax
.LBB0_1:                                # =>This Inner Loop Header: Depth=1
        addq    $1, %rax
        adcq    $0, %rsi
        movq    %rax, %rcx
        orq     %rsi, %rcx
        shrdq   $60, %rsi, %rcx
        jne     .LBB0_1
        retq

or (with slowSHLD):

slow128(unsigned __int128):                            # @slow128(unsigned __int128)
        movq    %rdi, %rax
.LBB0_1:                                # =>This Inner Loop Header: Depth=1
        addq    $1, %rax
        adcq    $0, %rsi
        movq    %rax, %rdx
        movq    %rsi, %rcx
        shrq    $60, %rdx
        rolq    $4, %rcx
        orq     %rcx, %rdx
        jne     .LBB0_1
        retq

[llvmbot]

@llvm/issue-subscribers-backend-x86

[rotateright]

I have one more SDAG patch in the works for this. AFAICT, we've already fixed the motivating example on targets other than x86. But x86 has legal funnel-shift instructions for scalar types (shrd/shld), so we need one more combine for setcc like this:
https://alive2.llvm.org/ce/z/wsbSDw
// fshl (or F1, Y), F1, C ==/!= 0 --> or (shl Y, C), F1 ==/!= 0
// fshl F0, (or Y, F0), C ==/!= 0 --> or (srl Y, BW-C), F0 ==/!= 0

It's a minor diff for most x86 targets - just trading a funnel shift for a shift. For vectors, it would eliminate a shift. We could add that in IR too, but it would be too early to help this specific problem.

There are 2 patterns * 2 (commutes) * 2 (left/right) * 2 (predicates) = 16 tests needed.

[RKSimon]

@sqrmax @nerh @rotateright Resolve this now?

The motivating example was fixed but there's still an issue with funnel shifts comparison with zero for shifts having operands 4 (or more) times wider than target machine's register (i.e. 128 bit funnel shifts and ARM target, see https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/main/llvm/test/CodeGen/ARM/icmp-shift-opt.ll#L139).