Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

You are viewing an old version of this page. View the current version.

Compare with Current View Page History

« Previous Version 2 Next »

About

The ZiCondops extension provides a conditional zero primitive upon which subsets of conditional move and conditional arithmetic/logical operations can be implemented.   Transforming control flow into conditional operations can improve code performance by eliminating branch mispredict costs as well as reducing the load on the branch predictors.  The earlier in the optimizer pipeline these transformations are performed the more likely they are to expose secondary optimization opportunities as well since the transformations result in larger basic blocks (a fundamental unit of code most compiler optimizations work on).


This item is meant to track pieces of the 2H2023 effort that did not get fully integrated upstream in time for gcc-14.


  • Improvement of if-conversion pass in GCC to handle SUBREG and zero/sign extended objects.
  • If-convert the conditional in the move_one_fast loop of deepsjeng
    • Two approaches
      • Improve min/max discovery in gimple which should simplify the conditional code to optimizable form in the RTL if-converter code
      • Improve the RTL if-converter code to better handle multiple if-convertable instrutions
      • Add backend pattern to recognize an if-then-else as a min/max
  • Cost model adjustments
    • As touched on in upstream bug 112462, when we have a condition other than (reg) eq/ne (const_int 0) we need to bump the cost of using zicond as the condition will need canonicalization.
    • Similarly we may need to bump the cost depending on the true/false arms
    • May want to do some refactoring so that we can share code across costing & expansion.


Analysis has shown that the most common missed if-conversion cases for RISC-V are related to mode changing operators such as SUBREG, ZERO_EXTEND and SIGN_EXTEND which are commonly used when operating on 32bit objects for rv64..  ESWIN and Ventana have differing implementations in this space that need to be resolved.  The core concern with the ESWIN implementation is that it directly modifies the objects in the IL, which in turn means that it's difficult (potentially impossible) to correctly handle certain cases (shifts).  In contrast the Ventana implementation emits new IL for the converted sequence and deletes the old parts of the IL.


Stakeholders/Partners

RISE:

Ventana: Raphael Zinsly, Jeff Law, Robin Dapp ESWIN: Fei Gao

External:


Dependencies



Status

Development

IN PROGRESS


Development Timeline1H2024
Upstreaming

IN PROGRESS



Upstream Version

gcc-15 (target)

(Spring 2025)





Contacts

Raphael Zinsly (Ventana)

Jeff Law (Ventana)


DependenciesNone


Updates

 

  • Remaining items from 1H2024 rolled into new task
  • No labels