[Bug libstdc++/114417] New: simd parameters are passed by memory on x64 , not using the available sse registers
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114417 Bug ID: 114417 Summary: simd parameters are passed by memory on x64 , not using the available sse registers Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: libstdc++ Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: lee.imple at gmail dot com Target Milestone: --- https://godbolt.org/z/3GYnadqc1 In current implementation, SIMD parameters are passed by memory, while the equivalent vector parameters are passed by SSE registers. If the equivalent vector parameters can be passed by SSE registers, can we use SSE registers for SIMD parameters? Maybe the performance difference is not so significant, but I just want to keep everything in registers.
[Bug target/114417] simd parameters are passed by memory on x64 , not using the available sse registers
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114417 --- Comment #2 from Imple Lee --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1) > I doubt this can change since this is the abi gcc decided on a long time ago. If we implement the simd class as a wrapper around a vector, the parameter can still be passed by sse registers, so I think there may be an implementation issue in libstdc++'s implementation of stdx::simd. https://godbolt.org/z/a6s67zzc7
[Bug target/114417] simd parameters are passed by memory on x64 , not using the available sse registers
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114417 --- Comment #3 from Imple Lee --- Oh, I didn't make it clear. I am describing libstdc++'s std::experimental::simd class.
[Bug libstdc++/114417] std::experimental::simd is not a POD (by ABI definitions) and is always passed by reference instead of by value
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114417 --- Comment #7 from Imple Lee --- I tried to dig into the source code and it seems like it was designed to be "passed via the stack". Not sure whether this was specified by the specification (did not find relevant requirements, but I am not quite familiar with that) or just an implementation choice. In GCC git tree [libstdc++-v3/include/experimental/bits/simd_fixed_size.h, line 27](https://gcc.gnu.org/git?p=gcc.git;a=blob;f=libstdc%2B%2B-v3/include/experimental/bits/simd_fixed_size.h;h=408855212979cc32699db0805079ac74f495a8fa;hb=HEAD#l27): ... * The fixed_size ABI gives the following guarantees: * - simd objects are passed via the stack ...
[Bug libstdc++/114417] std::experimental::simd is not a POD (by ABI definitions) and is always passed by reference instead of by value
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114417 --- Comment #11 from Imple Lee --- > What you want to use instead is std::experimental::simd_abi::deduce_t. > That'll give you a not-fixed_size ABI if one exists. And those will likely be > passed via registers (as long as the psABI allows). Great! It does work as intended. Thank you for telling me that. Maybe all I need is just to read the docs on cppref more carefully :|
[Bug target/114908] New: fails to optimize avx2 in-register permute written with std::experimental::simd
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114908
Bug ID: 114908
Summary: fails to optimize avx2 in-register permute written
with std::experimental::simd
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: lee.imple at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
I am trying to write simd code with std::experimental::simd.
Here is the same function written in both std::experimental::simd and GNU
vector extension versions (available online at https://godbolt.org/z/dc169rY3o
).
The purpose is to permute the register from [w, x, y, z] into [0, w, x, y].
```c++
#include
#include
namespace stdx = std::experimental;
using data_t = std::uint64_t;
constexpr std::size_t data_size = 4;
template
using simd_of = std::experimental::simd>;
using simd_t = simd_of;
template
constexpr simd_of zero = {};
// stdx version
simd_t permute_simd(simd_t data) {
auto [carry, _] = split(data);
return concat(zero<1>, carry);
}
typedef data_t vector_t [[gnu::vector_size(data_size * sizeof(data_t))]];
constexpr vector_t zero_v = {0};
// gnu vector extension version
vector_t permute_vector(vector_t data) {
return __builtin_shufflevector(data, zero_v, 4, 0, 1, 2);
}
```
The code is compiled with the options `-O3 -march=x86-64-v3 -std=c++20`.
Although they should have the same functionality, generated assembly (by GCC)
is so different.
```asm
permute_simd(std::experimental::parallelism_v2::simd >):
pushq %rbp
vpxor %xmm1, %xmm1, %xmm1
movq %rsp, %rbp
andq $-32, %rsp
subq $8, %rsp
vmovdqa %ymm0, -120(%rsp)
vmovdqa %ymm1, -56(%rsp)
movq -104(%rsp), %rax
vmovdqa %xmm0, -56(%rsp)
movq -48(%rsp), %rdx
movq $0, -88(%rsp)
movq %rax, -40(%rsp)
movq -56(%rsp), %rax
vmovdqa -56(%rsp), %ymm2
vmovq %rax, %xmm0
vmovdqa %ymm2, -24(%rsp)
movq -8(%rsp), %rax
vpinsrq $1, %rdx, %xmm0, %xmm0
vmovdqu %xmm0, -80(%rsp)
movq %rax, -64(%rsp)
vmovdqa -88(%rsp), %ymm0
leave
ret
permute_vector(unsigned long __vector(4)):
vpxor %xmm1, %xmm1, %xmm1
vpermq $144, %ymm0, %ymm0
vpblendd $3, %ymm1, %ymm0, %ymm0
ret
```
However, Clang can optimize `permute_simd` into the same assembly as
`permute_vector`, so I think, instead of a bug in the std::experimental::simd,
it is a missed optimization in GCC.
```asm
permute_simd(std::experimental::parallelism_v2::simd >): #
@permute_simd(std::experimental::parallelism_v2::simd >)
vpermpd $144, %ymm0, %ymm0 # ymm0 = ymm0[0,0,1,2]
vxorps %xmm1, %xmm1, %xmm1
vblendps$3, %ymm1, %ymm0, %ymm0 # ymm0 =
ymm1[0,1],ymm0[2,3,4,5,6,7]
retq
permute_vector(unsigned long __vector(4)):#
@permute_vector(unsigned long __vector(4))
vpermpd $144, %ymm0, %ymm0 # ymm0 = ymm0[0,0,1,2]
vxorps %xmm1, %xmm1, %xmm1
vblendps$3, %ymm1, %ymm0, %ymm0 # ymm0 =
ymm1[0,1],ymm0[2,3,4,5,6,7]
retq
```
[Bug tree-optimization/114966] New: fails to optimize avx2 in-register permute written with std::experimental::simd
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114966
Bug ID: 114966
Summary: fails to optimize avx2 in-register permute written
with std::experimental::simd
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: lee.imple at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
This is actually another attempt to permute a simd register with
std::experimental::simd, like PR114908, but written differently.
Following is the same function written in both std::experimental::simd and GNU
vector extension versions (available online at https://godbolt.org/z/n3WvqcePo
).
The purpose is to permute the register from [w, x, y, z] into [0, w, x, y].
```c++
#include
#include
namespace stdx = std::experimental;
using data_t = std::uint64_t;
constexpr std::size_t data_size = 4;
template
using simd_of = std::experimental::simd>;
using simd_t = simd_of;
// stdx version
simd_t permute_simd(simd_t data) {
return simd_t([=](auto i) -> data_t {
constexpr size_t index = i - 1;
if constexpr (index < data_size) {
return data[index];
} else {
return 0;
}
});
}
typedef data_t vector_t [[gnu::vector_size(data_size * sizeof(data_t))]];
// gnu vector extension version
vector_t permute_vector(vector_t data) {
return __builtin_shufflevector(data, vector_t{0}, 4, 0, 1, 2);
}
```
The code is compiled with the options `-O3 -march=x86-64-v3 -std=c++20`.
Although they should have the same functionality, generated assembly (by GCC)
is so different.
```asm
permute_simd(std::experimental::parallelism_v2::simd >):
vmovq %xmm0, %rax
vpsrldq $8, %xmm0, %xmm1
vextracti128 $0x1, %ymm0, %xmm0
vpunpcklqdq %xmm0, %xmm1, %xmm1
vpxor %xmm0, %xmm0, %xmm0
vpinsrq $1, %rax, %xmm0, %xmm0
vinserti128 $0x1, %xmm1, %ymm0, %ymm0
ret
permute_vector(unsigned long __vector(4)):
vpxor %xmm1, %xmm1, %xmm1
vpermq $144, %ymm0, %ymm0
vpblendd $3, %ymm1, %ymm0, %ymm0
ret
```
However, Clang can optimize `permute_simd` into the same assembly as
`permute_vector`, so I think, instead of a bug in the std::experimental::simd,
it is a missed optimization in GCC.
```asm
permute_simd(std::experimental::parallelism_v2::simd >): #
@permute_simd(std::experimental::parallelism_v2::simd >)
vpermpd $144, %ymm0, %ymm0 # ymm0 = ymm0[0,0,1,2]
vxorps %xmm1, %xmm1, %xmm1
vblendps$3, %ymm1, %ymm0, %ymm0 # ymm0 =
ymm1[0,1],ymm0[2,3,4,5,6,7]
retq
permute_vector(unsigned long __vector(4)):#
@permute_vector(unsigned long __vector(4))
vpermpd $144, %ymm0, %ymm0 # ymm0 = ymm0[0,0,1,2]
vxorps %xmm1, %xmm1, %xmm1
vblendps$3, %ymm1, %ymm0, %ymm0 # ymm0 =
ymm1[0,1],ymm0[2,3,4,5,6,7]
retq
```
[Bug tree-optimization/114908] fails to optimize avx2 in-register permute written with std::experimental::simd
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114908 --- Comment #8 from Imple Lee --- I tried another way to permute the register. Although GCC does generate simd instructions, the generated code is sub-optimal. I opened PR114966 for that.
[Bug tree-optimization/114966] fails to optimize avx2 in-register permute written with std::experimental::simd
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114966 --- Comment #1 from Imple Lee --- This is probably a regression. GCC 13.2 can generate optimal code. See https://godbolt.org/z/4n8ovr7jr .
[Bug libstdc++/115454] New: std::experimental::find_last_set is buggy on x86-64-v4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115454
Bug ID: 115454
Summary: std::experimental::find_last_set is buggy on x86-64-v4
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: lee.imple at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
We are using a simd with 4 uint64_t elements (with `deduce_t`) on x86-64-v4.
We are trying to find the last element with the value -1 (i.e. all 1s).
The code is as following (available at https://godbolt.org/z/3f1nszf8E ),
compiled with the options `-O3 -march=x86-64-v4 -std=c++20`.
```c++
#include
#include
using deduce_t_element = std::experimental::simd<
std::uint64_t,
std::experimental::simd_abi::deduce_t
>;
using fixed_size_element = std::experimental::simd<
std::uint64_t,
std::experimental::simd_abi::fixed_size<4>
>;
int f_deduce(deduce_t_element e) {
return find_last_set(e != -1);
}
int f_fixed_size(fixed_size_element e) {
return find_last_set(e != -1);
}
```
G++ trunk gives the following assembly (I add the comments).
```asm
f_deduce(std::experimental::parallelism_v2::simd >):
vpcmpeqd %ymm1, %ymm1, %ymm1
movl $-1, %eax
vpcmpq $4, %ymm1, %ymm0, %k0
kmovb %k0, %edx
orb $-16, %dl# %dl |= 0xf0
je .L1
movzbl %dl, %edx
movl $31, %eax
lzcntl %edx, %edx# leading zeros is 24
# because the next byte is always 0b
subl %edx, %eax # so we get the result is 31 - 24 = 7
.L1:
ret
f_fixed_size(std::experimental::parallelism_v2::simd >):
vpcmpeqd %ymm0, %ymm0, %ymm0
movl $63, %edx
vpcmpq $4, (%rdi), %ymm0, %k0
kmovb %k0, %eax
andl $15, %eax
lzcntq %rax, %rax
subl %eax, %edx
movl %edx, %eax
vzeroupper
ret
```
In fact, the first function always gives the result 7 whatever argument it
gets, which is more obvious from clang++'s result.
```asm
f_deduce(std::experimental::parallelism_v2::simd>): #
@f_deduce(std::experimental::parallelism_v2::simd>)
movl $7, %eax
retq
f_fixed_size(std::experimental::parallelism_v2::simd>): #
@f_fixed_size(std::experimental::parallelism_v2::simd>)
vpcmpeqd %ymm0, %ymm0, %ymm0
vpcmpeqq (%rdi), %ymm0, %k0
kmovd %k0, %eax
xorb $15, %al
movzbl %al, %eax
lzcntq %rax, %rcx
movl $63, %eax
subl %ecx, %eax
vzeroupper
retq
```
I don't know why, but compiled result of `fixed_size_simd` seems to be
different.
[Bug libstdc++/118416] New: std::experimental::simd code detecting all zero is not optimized to simple ptest on x86-64 avx
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118416
Bug ID: 118416
Summary: std::experimental::simd code detecting all zero is not
optimized to simple ptest on x86-64 avx
Product: gcc
Version: 14.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: lee.imple at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
The following code uses experimental c++ standard library simd, and wants to
detect several all-zero patterns that can be easily done with the vptest
instructions. All the code is available at https://godbolt.org/z/Kx68E1T6v .
```c++
#include
#include
namespace stdx = std::experimental;
template
using simd_of = stdx::simd>;
using data_t = simd_of;
bool simple_ptest(data_t x) {
return all_of(x == 0);
}
bool ptest_and(data_t a, data_t b) {
return all_of((a & b) == 0);
}
bool ptest_andn(data_t a, data_t b) {
return all_of((a & ~b) == 0);
}
```
Equivalent assembly (hand-written):
```asm
simple_ptest:
vptest %xmm0, %xmm0
sete%al
ret
ptest_and:
vptest %xmm0, %xmm1
sete%al
ret
ptest_andn:
vptest %xmm0, %xmm1
setc%al
ret
```
But g++ generates the following code at `-O3 -march=x86-64-v3`, and clang++ and
even Intel icpx generates almost the same assembly.
```asm
simple_ptest(std::experimental::parallelism_v2::simd >):
vpxor %xmm1, %xmm1, %xmm1
vpcmpeqd%xmm1, %xmm0, %xmm0
vpcmpeqd%xmm1, %xmm1, %xmm1
vptest %xmm1, %xmm0
setc%al
ret
ptest_and(std::experimental::parallelism_v2::simd >,
std::experimental::parallelism_v2::simd >):
vpand %xmm1, %xmm0, %xmm0
vpxor %xmm1, %xmm1, %xmm1
vpcmpeqd%xmm1, %xmm0, %xmm0
vpcmpeqd%xmm1, %xmm1, %xmm1
vptest %xmm1, %xmm0
setc%al
ret
ptest_andn(std::experimental::parallelism_v2::simd >,
std::experimental::parallelism_v2::simd >):
vpandn %xmm0, %xmm1, %xmm1
vpxor %xmm0, %xmm0, %xmm0
vpcmpeqd%xmm0, %xmm1, %xmm1
vpcmpeqd%xmm0, %xmm0, %xmm0
vptest %xmm0, %xmm1
setc%al
ret
```
I don't know whether this should be a missed optimization in g++ or a libstdc++
issue. Since these compilers generate the same output from the same library
code, I guess probably this should be a library issue.
Possibly related: PR58790 ?
[Bug libstdc++/118416] std::experimental::simd code detecting all zero is not optimized to simple ptest on x86-64 avx
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118416 --- Comment #1 from Imple Lee --- Possibly related: PR90483 .
[Bug libstdc++/118546] New: std::experimental::simd operator== fails to compile with clang++ 19.1.0 on x86-64-v4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118546
Bug ID: 118546
Summary: std::experimental::simd operator== fails to compile
with clang++ 19.1.0 on x86-64-v4
Product: gcc
Version: 14.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: lee.imple at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
The following code fails to compile with clang++ 19.1.0 with the compilation
options `-march=x86-64-v4 -std=c++20`. Online link:
https://godbolt.org/z/sxqsKrv9e .
```c++
#include
#include
using deduce_t_element = std::experimental::simd<
std::uint64_t,
std::experimental::simd_abi::deduce_t
>;
auto f(deduce_t_element e) {
return e == 0;
}
```
The error message (copied from godbolt):
```
In file included from :1:
In file included from
/opt/compiler-explorer/gcc-14.2.0/lib/gcc/x86_64-linux-gnu/14.2.0/../../../../include/c++/14.2.0/experimental/simd:80:
/opt/compiler-explorer/gcc-14.2.0/lib/gcc/x86_64-linux-gnu/14.2.0/../../../../include/c++/14.2.0/experimental/bits/simd_x86.h:4232:18:
error: static assertion failed due to requirement 'is_same_v'
4232 | static_assert(is_same_v<_Tp, __int_for_sizeof_t<_Tp>>);
| ^~~
/opt/compiler-explorer/gcc-14.2.0/lib/gcc/x86_64-linux-gnu/14.2.0/../../../../include/c++/14.2.0/experimental/bits/simd_x86.h:2244:26:
note: in instantiation of function template specialization
'std::experimental::_MaskImplX86Mixin::_S_to_bits' requested
here
2244 | return _MaskImpl::_S_to_bits(
| ^
/opt/compiler-explorer/gcc-14.2.0/lib/gcc/x86_64-linux-gnu/14.2.0/../../../../include/c++/14.2.0/experimental/bits/simd.h:5625:40:
note: in instantiation of function template specialization
'std::experimental::_SimdImplX86>::_S_equal_to' requested here
5625 | { return simd::_S_make_mask(_Impl::_S_equal_to(__x._M_data,
__y._M_data)); }
|^
:10:14: note: in instantiation of member function
'std::experimental::operator==' requested here
10 | return e == 0;
| ^
1 error generated.
Compiler returned: 1
```
[Bug libstdc++/118546] std::experimental::simd operator== fails to compile with clang++ 19.1.0 on x86-64-v4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118546 Imple Lee changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |INVALID Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED --- Comment #1 from Imple Lee --- Probably a clang++ bug instead of libstdc++ bug. Reported as https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/132604 .
