On 16. May 2023, at 09:18, Marvin Häuser <mhaeuser@posteo.de> wrote:
On 16. May 2023, at 04:22, Pedro Falcato <pedro.falcato@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, May 16, 2023 at 2:46 AM gaoliming via groups.io
<gaoliming=byosoft.com.cn@groups.io> wrote:
Pedro:
-----邮件原件-----
发件人: devel@edk2.groups.io <devel@edk2.groups.io> 代表 Pedro Falcato
发送时间: 2023年5月15日 23:15
收件人: devel@edk2.groups.io
抄送: Pedro Falcato <pedro.falcato@gmail.com>; Michael D Kinney
<michael.d.kinney@intel.com>; Liming Gao <gaoliming@byosoft.com.cn>;
Zhiguang Liu <zhiguang.liu@intel.com>; Marvin Häuser
<mhaeuser@posteo.de>
主题: [edk2-devel] [PATCH v2 1/1] MdePkg/Base.h: Simply alignment
expressions
Simplify ALIGN_VALUE and ALIGN_VALUE_ADDEND into simpler expressions.
ALIGN_VALUE can simply be a (value + (align - 1)) & ~align
expression, which works for any power of 2 alignment and generates
smaller code sequences. For instance:
ALIGN_VALUE(15, 16) = (15 + 15) & ~16 = 16
ALIGN_VALUE(16, 16) = (16 + 15) & ~16 = 16
Old codegen:
movq %rdi, %rax
negq %rax
andl $15, %eax
addq %rdi, %rax
New codegen:
leaq 15(%rdi), %rax
andq $-16, %rax
ALIGN_VALUE_ADDEND can simply use a bitwise NOT of Value to get the
addend for alignment, as, for instance:
~15 & (16 - 1) = 1
15 + 1 = 16
~15 & (16 - 1) = 1
Its value should be zero, not 1. I also verify the updated ALIGN_VALUE_ADDEND.
Its value is incorrect. Please double check.
Hi Liming, you're 100% right. There was a mixup when we were
discussing this optimization, and I got the mental calculations wrong
there.
Two's complement is definitely what we want, as one's complement is
always off by one (from what we want).
So negation (-) works beautifully, as seen in the old codegen (we
figured this out from the compiler's output).
To be clear on the maths side of things:“& (Alignment - 1U)” is equivalent to “mod Alignment” for powers of two.“-Value” is equivalent to “2^N - Value” once the expression is promoted to an unsigned type, where N is the precision of said type.So, the old expression basically was “(Alignment - Value) mod Alignment” and the new expression is “(2^N - Value) mod Alignment”. By modulo laws, we can apply the mod to the operands, which for the left ones gives us “Alignment mod Alignment = 0” and “2^N mod Alignment = 0”, obviously for Alignment being a power of two. They’re trivially equivalent.
Sorry, I have to add a correction here. This assumes that 2^N >= Alignment, which somehow I took for granted, but by removing Alignment from the expression, -Value will have the precision of Value rather than the higher precision out of {Alignment, Value}, which silently changes the semantics of N and thus 2^N. For Alignment > 2^(precision of Value), this will indeed not work.
Both current issues would be resolved by some mechanism to type-promote on demand. I.e. if for ALIGN_VALUE, the sub-expression (Alignment - 1U) in ~(Alignment - 1U) was promoted to the precision of Value, and for ALIGN_VALUE_ADDEND, the sub-expression Value in -Value was promoted to the precision of Alignment, both would be correct.
Best regards,
Marvin.
If you want a more technical explanation - previously, only the lower “Alignment - 1” Bits of the result were considered. As they are 0 for Alignment, the left operand, basically you get:Result = (Alignment - Value) & (Alignment - 1) = (Alignment - Value)[0 : Alignment - 1] = (Alignment[0 : Alignment - 1] - Value[0 : Alignment - 1])[…] = (0 - Value[…])[…]As you can see, only the lower Alignment -1 Bits of both operands matter and they are always equal for Alignment and 0.Best regards,Marvin
Sent a v3.
--
Pedro