For the GPR result, the masking already happens as part of the bfi. So the only
point of masking is for the flag calculation. But actually, every flag except
carry will ignore the upper bits anyway. And the carry calculation actually
WANTS the upper bit as a faster impl.
Deletes a pile of code both in FEX and the output :-)
ADC/SBC could probably get similar treatment later.
Signed-off-by: Alyssa Rosenzweig <alyssa@rosenzweig.io>
Now unused, its former users all prefer LoadPFRaw since they can fold in some of
this math into the use.
Signed-off-by: Alyssa Rosenzweig <alyssa@rosenzweig.io>
Use the raw popcount rather than the final PF and use some sneaky bit math to
come out 1 instruction ahead.
Closes#3117
Signed-off-by: Alyssa Rosenzweig <alyssa@rosenzweig.io>
Gets us the constant source optimization without more code duplication. And
honestly I prefer the combined presentation.
Signed-off-by: Alyssa Rosenzweig <alyssa@rosenzweig.io>
The only reason we need to XOR arguments for AF is to get bit 4 correct. But if
the operand in question is known to have bit 4 clear, the XOR will be an
effective no-op and can be skipped. This saves an instruction in a bunch of
common cases, like inc/dec. If we dedicated a register to AF to eliminate the
store, we would not save an instruction from this but would still come out ahead
due to an eor turning into a (zero cycle?) mov that can be handled by the
renamer.
Signed-off-by: Alyssa Rosenzweig <alyssa@rosenzweig.io>
If we are going to throw away the updated value of CF anyway there is no point
wasting an instruction to invert CF. Add an IR toggle for that so the arm64 JIT
can make better choices.
Signed-off-by: Alyssa Rosenzweig <alyssa@rosenzweig.io>
Optimal blendps is worst case 2 instructions.
FEX's RA doesn't quite get there since it can't see through multiple
instructions with SRA destinations. That'll be fixed in the future.
Optimal blendps is always one instruction, one is a no-op.
We always hit this.
Cleans up the code which had special cased some 32-bit optimization
which is unnecessary now that both 8-bit and 16-bit are also optimized.
When FEX does a VExtractToGPR, the result is zero extended to the full
GPR register size. This means we don't need to do a zero extend when
storing to a guest GPR.
Makes pextr{b,w} optimal now.
Needs #3088 merged first.
In the case that source registers are sequential then this turns in to a
load of the vector constant (2 instructions) and the single tbl
instruction.
If the registers aren't sequential then the tbl turns in to 2 moves and
then the single tbl, which with zero-cycle rename isn't too bad.
Since this is a worst case option this is significantly better than the
previous implementation doing a bunch of inserts which was always 9
instructions.
We should still strive to implement faster versions without the use of
TBL2 if possible but this makes it less of a concern.
Hits a whole bunch of common cases, most of which then emit optimal code
generation.
Two cases that use VInsElement hit the RA quirk where the SRA
destination is dead but RA doesn't see it, so it ends up doing a couple
moves. If RA gets fixed then those two moves will go away.
There are definitely still cases that we could emit more optimal code.
Additionally we could implement a TBL2 IR operation to do a LUT approach
for ones we don't cover.
Problem with implementing a TBL2 ir operation is that we have no way to
ensure registers are sequential so we would need to always do moves
```asm
ldr v2, <LUT Table>
mov v0, v16
mov v1, v18
tbl v16.16b, { v0.16b, v1.16b }, v2.16b
```
Which to be fair isn't terrible, and if we're lucky that the guest uses
sequential registers we can naturally get the more optimal code path.
Ideally our RA could push some operations in to sequential registers but
that's not possible currently.
I'll do a follow-up PR that implements TBL2.
Move instruction to itself here is a nop.
Need to be careful about AVX operations which use a different handler
since those might actually zero the upper bits on 128-bit move
Currently FEX will always jump out of the JIT any time FCW was getting
written to, ensuring that the softfloat state is setup to rounding at
the time of FCW getting written.
This has the unintended side-effect that even in "x87 reduced precision"
mode we were jumping out of the JIT.
This hit a real world use case of an installer reloading FCW after every
x87 operation and generating a block with 2297 instructions.
Instead when jumping out of the JIT for handling x87 operations, load
FCW and pass it as the first argument of the handler. Setting the
softfloat state at that point.
This helps the installer's hottest block by cutting it down to 1477
instructions. 64.3% of the original size. The code block is still
burning 90% of the CPU time of the installer but the performance is
significantly better while it is doing its decompression.
In order to optimize this installer's block of code more then we will
likely need to optimize out x87 stack usage.
This wasn't implemented initially for the interpreter and x86 JIT.
This meant we are maintaining two codepaths. Implement these operations
in the interpreter and x86 JIT so we no longer need to do that.
The emitted code in the x86 JIT is hot garbage, but it's only necessary
for correctness testing, not performance testing there.
Now that the RCLSE pass finally optimizes redundant loads again this
optimization that lives in the OpcodeDispatcher can be removed.
With InstCountCI reran, the pblendvb results don't change at all, as
expected.
Now the calculation of PF is entirely deferred, by inverting our internal
representation of PF. All the (e.g.) logical op needs to do is store the low
8-bits of the result.
This is a bit of a mixed bag. Primary ALU ops all save an instruction, by
skip the XOR. Loading PF takes an extra instruction, that's expected. The tricky
cases are:
* Zeroing PF. This now requires writing 1 instead of 0, which may require an
extra move for the constant. Some of this will go away when we merge PF+AF
into a single register, which is next up on the list. In that case, the
two stores will turn into 1 `or`. So if we need to write a 1 to PF (zeroing
x86 view of PF), that will get absorbed into the or, if we also write AF. If
we leave AF undefined and need to write a 1, that's a single mov instruction
and we couldn't do better anyway if not inverted (since we'd still have a mov
wzr even then). So in view of the future work, this isn't something I'm
concerned about.
* Float comparisons that put Unordered into PF. These require an extra invert to
match the new convention. These are already so unnecessarily bloated that I'm
not convinced I'm making things materially worse here. But we realistically
need multiple destination support in the IR to fix this particular mess.
Signed-off-by: Alyssa Rosenzweig <alyssa@rosenzweig.io>
Now that PF calculation is deferred, the cost of calculating PF correctly should
be tolerable. Remove the speed hack to skip PF. It's fundamentally broken, and
there are enough broken things in FEX as it is that we don't need to maintain
this one ;-)
Signed-off-by: Alyssa Rosenzweig <alyssa@rosenzweig.io>
AF is calculated as:
((Src1 ^ Src2) ^ Res)[4]
Due to the extract, this is equivalent to
((Src1 ^ Src2) ^ (Res ^ 1))[4]
We already store (Res ^ 1) as the PF byte. So, it suffices to store
AF Byte = Src1 ^ Src2
and then we can recover the flag value
AF = (AF Byte ^ PF Byte)[4]
This saves an instruction from the AF calculation. It does couple PF/AF writes.
In practice, most instructions fall into one of these categories:
* Both PF and AF written together, the coupling is correct.
* PF written but AF invalidated, irrelevant.
* Both invalidated, irrelevant.
None of these require special handling. Where we do need special handling is
when we want to write them separately, in which case we can fix-up the value of
AF as appropriate.
Signed-off-by: Alyssa Rosenzweig <alyssa@rosenzweig.io>
Use an explicit invalidate, so we can zero easily enough if we need to for
debugging later but we can save the instrs ordinarily.
Signed-off-by: Alyssa Rosenzweig <alyssa@rosenzweig.io>
The AF calculation is a Bfe of an XOR result. We can't defer the XOR (since it
combines multiple inputs into one), but we can & should defer the Bfe. Since AF
is written much more often than it is read, this should come out ahead.
Signed-off-by: Alyssa Rosenzweig <alyssa@rosenzweig.io>
Alyssa Rosenzweig