Stefan Kanthak via llvm-dev
2018-Dec-03 13:40 UTC
[llvm-dev] The builtins library of compiler-rt is a performance HOG^WKILLER
Hi @ll,
LLVM-7.0.0-win32.exe contains and installs
lib\clang\7.0.0\lib\windows\clang_rt.builtins-i386.lib
The implementation of (at least) the multiplication and division
routines __[u]{div,mod,divmod,mul}[sdt]i[34] shipped with this
libraries SUCKS: they are factors SLOWER than even Microsoft's
NOTORIOUS POOR implementation of 64-bit division shipped with
MSVC and Windows!
The reasons: 1. subroutine matroschka, 2. "C" implementation!
JFTR: the target processor "i386" (introduced October 1985) is
a 32-bit processor, it has instructions to divide 64-bit
integers by 32-bit integers, and to multiply two 32-bit
integers giving a 64-bit product!
I expect that a library written 20+ years later takes
advantage of these instructions!
__divsi3 (18 instructions) perform a DIV after 2 calls of abs(),
plus a final negation, instead of just
a single IDIV
__modsi3 (14 instructions) calls __divsi3 (18 instructions)
__divmodsi4 (17 instructions) calls __divsi3 (18 instructions)
__udivsi3 (52 instructions) does NOT use DIV, but performs BITWISE
division using shifts and additions!
__umodsi3 (14 instructions) calls __udivsi3 (52 instructions)
__udivmodsi4 (17 instructions) calls __udivsi3 (52 instructions)
__muldi3 (41 instructions) performs a "long" multiplication on
16-bit "digits"
JFTR: I haven't checked whether clang actually calls these
SUPERFLUOUS routines listed above.
IT BETTER SHOULD NOT, NEVER!
__divdi3 (37 instructions) calls __udivmoddi4 (254 instructions)
__moddi3 (51 instructions) calls __udivmoddi4 (254 instructions)
__divmoddi4 (36 instructions) calls __divdi3 (37 instructions) which
calls __udivmoddi4 (254 instructions)
__udivdi3 (8 instructions) calls __udivmoddi4 (254 instructions)
__umoddi3 (33 instructions) calls __udivmoddi4 (254 instructions)
JFTR: the subdirectory compiler-rt/lib/builtins/i386/ contains FAR
better (although suboptimal) __divdi3, __moddi3, __udivdi3 and
__umoddi3 routines written in assembler, which SHOULD be
shipped with clang_rt.builtins-i386.lib instead of the above
listed POOR and NOT optimised implementations!
NOT AMUSED
Stefan Kanthak
PS: <https://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2018-November/128094.html>
has patches for the assembler routines!
PPS: please remove the blatant lie
| The builtins library provides optimized implementations of
| this and other low-level routines, either in target-independent
| C form, or as a heavily-optimized assembly.
seen on <https://compiler-rt.llvm.org/>
These routines are NOT optimized, and for sure NOT heavily-
optimized!
Craig Topper via llvm-dev
2018-Dec-03 17:53 UTC
[llvm-dev] The builtins library of compiler-rt is a performance HOG^WKILLER
None of the "si" division routines will be used by x86. They exist for targets that don't support the operations natively. X86 supports them natively so will never use the library functions. X86 has its own assembly implementation of __muldi3 that uses 32-bit pieces. We should be using the assembly versions of the "di" division routines on i386. Except when compiler-rt is built with MSVC because MSVC can't parse the at&t assembly syntax. ~Craig On Mon, Dec 3, 2018 at 5:51 AM Stefan Kanthak via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:> Hi @ll, > > LLVM-7.0.0-win32.exe contains and installs > lib\clang\7.0.0\lib\windows\clang_rt.builtins-i386.lib > > The implementation of (at least) the multiplication and division > routines __[u]{div,mod,divmod,mul}[sdt]i[34] shipped with this > libraries SUCKS: they are factors SLOWER than even Microsoft's > NOTORIOUS POOR implementation of 64-bit division shipped with > MSVC and Windows! > > The reasons: 1. subroutine matroschka, 2. "C" implementation! > > JFTR: the target processor "i386" (introduced October 1985) is > a 32-bit processor, it has instructions to divide 64-bit > integers by 32-bit integers, and to multiply two 32-bit > integers giving a 64-bit product! > I expect that a library written 20+ years later takes > advantage of these instructions! > > __divsi3 (18 instructions) perform a DIV after 2 calls of abs(), > plus a final negation, instead of just > a single IDIV > __modsi3 (14 instructions) calls __divsi3 (18 instructions) > __divmodsi4 (17 instructions) calls __divsi3 (18 instructions) > > __udivsi3 (52 instructions) does NOT use DIV, but performs BITWISE > division using shifts and additions! > __umodsi3 (14 instructions) calls __udivsi3 (52 instructions) > __udivmodsi4 (17 instructions) calls __udivsi3 (52 instructions) > > __muldi3 (41 instructions) performs a "long" multiplication on > 16-bit "digits" > > JFTR: I haven't checked whether clang actually calls these > SUPERFLUOUS routines listed above. > IT BETTER SHOULD NOT, NEVER! > > __divdi3 (37 instructions) calls __udivmoddi4 (254 instructions) > __moddi3 (51 instructions) calls __udivmoddi4 (254 instructions) > __divmoddi4 (36 instructions) calls __divdi3 (37 instructions) which > calls __udivmoddi4 (254 instructions) > __udivdi3 (8 instructions) calls __udivmoddi4 (254 instructions) > __umoddi3 (33 instructions) calls __udivmoddi4 (254 instructions) > > JFTR: the subdirectory compiler-rt/lib/builtins/i386/ contains FAR > better (although suboptimal) __divdi3, __moddi3, __udivdi3 and > __umoddi3 routines written in assembler, which SHOULD be > shipped with clang_rt.builtins-i386.lib instead of the above > listed POOR and NOT optimised implementations! > > NOT AMUSED > Stefan Kanthak > > PS: <https://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2018-November/128094.html> > has patches for the assembler routines! > > PPS: please remove the blatant lie > | The builtins library provides optimized implementations of > | this and other low-level routines, either in target-independent > | C form, or as a heavily-optimized assembly. > seen on <https://compiler-rt.llvm.org/> > These routines are NOT optimized, and for sure NOT heavily- > optimized! > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org > http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev >-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20181203/4a2c9e20/attachment.html>
Stefan Kanthak via llvm-dev
2018-Dec-03 18:50 UTC
[llvm-dev] The builtins library of compiler-rt is a performance HOG^WKILLER
"Craig Topper" <craig.topper at gmail.com> wrote:> None of the "si" division routines will be used by x86.That was my expectation too.> They exist for targets that don't support the operations natively. > X86 supports them natively so will never use the library functions.So they SHOULD not be built (or at least not shipped) with the builtins library for x86.> X86 has its own assembly implementation of __muldi3 that uses 32-bit > pieces.I know; that's why I placed this ABOVE my "JFTR:"> We should be using the assembly versions of the "di" division routines on > i386. Except when compiler-rt is built with MSVC because MSVC can't parse > the at&t assembly syntax.Again: my offer to provide these routines still stands! I have OPTIMISED __divdi3, __moddi3, __udivdi3 and __umoddi3 in Intel syntax, wrapped as inline files into an NMakefile, for use with ML.EXE. For the optimisations see the patch I sent last week. Since Howard Hinnant is NO MORE with LLVM: who is the CURRENT code owner and reviewer for the builtins library, especially for x86? I'm asking this SIMPLE question now for the 3rd time! I also have __udivmoddi3: adding the pointer to the remainder as argument and 4 more instructions will turn it into __udivmoddi4. Compiling them with MSVC is of course easy to achieve: remove the MASM/ML statements, put the assembler source inside an __asm block, and add a function definition with __declspec(naked) But then someone will have to find new filenames; I'd prefer to leave them as *.ASM, so they can be added to YOUR source tree without clobbering existing files. The same holds for __alldiv, __alldvrm, __allrem, __aulldiv, __aulldvrm and __aullrem, plus __allmul, __allshl, _allshr and __aullshr. If you name a reviewer I'll send them to llvm-commits! regards Stefan> On Mon, Dec 3, 2018 at 5:51 AM Stefan Kanthak via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> Hi @ll, >> >> LLVM-7.0.0-win32.exe contains and installs >> lib\clang\7.0.0\lib\windows\clang_rt.builtins-i386.lib >> >> The implementation of (at least) the multiplication and division >> routines __[u]{div,mod,divmod,mul}[sdt]i[34] shipped with this >> libraries SUCKS: they are factors SLOWER than even Microsoft's >> NOTORIOUS POOR implementation of 64-bit division shipped with >> MSVC and Windows! >> >> The reasons: 1. subroutine matroschka, 2. "C" implementation! >> >> JFTR: the target processor "i386" (introduced October 1985) is >> a 32-bit processor, it has instructions to divide 64-bit >> integers by 32-bit integers, and to multiply two 32-bit >> integers giving a 64-bit product! >> I expect that a library written 20+ years later takes >> advantage of these instructions! >> >> __divsi3 (18 instructions) perform a DIV after 2 calls of abs(), >> plus a final negation, instead of just >> a single IDIV >> __modsi3 (14 instructions) calls __divsi3 (18 instructions) >> __divmodsi4 (17 instructions) calls __divsi3 (18 instructions) >> >> __udivsi3 (52 instructions) does NOT use DIV, but performs BITWISE >> division using shifts and additions! >> __umodsi3 (14 instructions) calls __udivsi3 (52 instructions) >> __udivmodsi4 (17 instructions) calls __udivsi3 (52 instructions) >> >> __muldi3 (41 instructions) performs a "long" multiplication on >> 16-bit "digits" >> >> JFTR: I haven't checked whether clang actually calls these >> SUPERFLUOUS routines listed above. >> IT BETTER SHOULD NOT, NEVER! >> >> __divdi3 (37 instructions) calls __udivmoddi4 (254 instructions) >> __moddi3 (51 instructions) calls __udivmoddi4 (254 instructions) >> __divmoddi4 (36 instructions) calls __divdi3 (37 instructions) which >> calls __udivmoddi4 (254 instructions) >> __udivdi3 (8 instructions) calls __udivmoddi4 (254 instructions) >> __umoddi3 (33 instructions) calls __udivmoddi4 (254 instructions) >> >> JFTR: the subdirectory compiler-rt/lib/builtins/i386/ contains FAR >> better (although suboptimal) __divdi3, __moddi3, __udivdi3 and >> __umoddi3 routines written in assembler, which SHOULD be >> shipped with clang_rt.builtins-i386.lib instead of the above >> listed POOR and NOT optimised implementations! >> >> NOT AMUSED >> Stefan Kanthak >> >> PS: <https://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2018-November/128094.html> >> has patches for the assembler routines! >> >> PPS: please remove the blatant lie >> | The builtins library provides optimized implementations of >> | this and other low-level routines, either in target-independent >> | C form, or as a heavily-optimized assembly. >> seen on <https://compiler-rt.llvm.org/> >> These routines are NOT optimized, and for sure NOT heavily- >> optimized! >> _______________________________________________ >> LLVM Developers mailing list >> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org >> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev >> >
Chandler Carruth via llvm-dev
2018-Dec-05 13:38 UTC
[llvm-dev] The builtins library of compiler-rt is a performance HOG^WKILLER
On Mon, Dec 3, 2018 at 2:51 PM Stefan Kanthak via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:> Hi @ll, > > LLVM-7.0.0-win32.exe contains and installs > lib\clang\7.0.0\lib\windows\clang_rt.builtins-i386.lib > > The implementation of (at least) the multiplication and division > routines __[u]{div,mod,divmod,mul}[sdt]i[34] shipped with this > libraries SUCKS: they are factors SLOWER than even Microsoft's > NOTORIOUS POOR implementation of 64-bit division shipped with > MSVC and Windows! >I'm really happy that you're looking at making some of these routines better (and Craig and others have given excellent suggestions about how to go about this. But in the future, please be more polite and respectful on the LLVM mailing lists. Insults, all-capital-letters, and inflammatory language are unnecessary and unhelpful in our community. You can tell us that "the performance is really bad" and we'll actually take that more seriously than the phrasing you've used in this email. Anyways, also looking forward to the improvements to this area. -Chandler -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20181205/2d4c2952/attachment.html>