[Vm-dev] Funny Floats [WAS OpenSmalltalk current on aarch64]

Nicolas Cellier nicolas.cellier.aka.nice at gmail.com
Wed Dec 18 09:43:57 UTC 2019


Hi Clement,
I need more context to answer your question.
We need to declare an automatic (local) variable for holding the content.
Here I understand that bits has to be re-interpreted as an array of int: we
need to know the length of this array.
If we can't determine the length at compile time, this is going to be
tricky...

I have no VMMaker image handy, so I won't try to type the exact declaration
stntax from memory,
but I can give you an equivalent for swapper in C if the purpose is to swap:

int i[sizeof(double) / sizeof(int)];
double d;
memcpy(i,&d,sizeof(d));
return i[1-index];

Usage of union for type puning is legal in C, at least up to C99.
It is not legal in C++: the compiler may assume that assigning swapper.d
won't have any effect on swapper.i, et vice et versa.
We can use one field or the other but they must be considered unrelated.
hence it can  eliminate some code or consider it invariant in loops and
keep swapper.d and swapper.i in two different registers and never reload
them from memory...
My only concern is if we want to use compiler with unclear standards (MSVC?)

Le mar. 17 déc. 2019 à 20:05, Clément Béra <bera.clement at gmail.com> a
écrit :

>
> Hi Nicolas, hi all,
>
> Can you be more specific Nicolas on how to use memcpy to circumvent strict
> aliasing? What should the convention for the line:
> ^ (self cCoerceSimple: (self addressOf: bits) to: #'int *') at: fieldIndex
> ? This:
> | res |
> self memcpy: (self addressOf: res) _: bits + (fieldIndex *4) _: 4.
> ^ res
> ?
>
> I've already seen union used in the VM to circumvent aliasing (Cf in
> sqMemoryAccess.h):
> /* this is to allow strict aliasing assumption in the optimizer */
> typedef union { double d; int i[sizeof(double) / sizeof(int)]; } _swapper;
>
> Not sure if we should do something about that right now.
>
> On Wed, Dec 11, 2019 at 8:58 PM Nicolas Cellier <
> nicolas.cellier.aka.nice at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Hi all, Eliot, Pablo,
>> we should review all the pointer aliasing that we are still depending
>> upon, because it can strike anytime soon...
>> The recommended way is memcpy, so let's use that.
>> The alternative is type puning via union, but it's not legal on C++. If
>> wanting to support exotic compiler (MSVC) which is mainly focused on C++,
>> not modern C, it's safer to use memcpy.
>>
>> Le mer. 11 déc. 2019 à 20:00, Eliot Miranda <eliot.miranda at gmail.com> a
>> écrit :
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > On Dec 11, 2019, at 9:09 AM, "tesonep at gmail.com" <tesonep at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> > 
>>> > Hi Eliot, you can use PT as initials (I don't if there is a clash or
>>> > ptesone) and the timestamp is just today.
>>>
>>> Thanks.  And I’ll include your email on the GCC SSA.  Thanks for
>>> tracking this down.  This has been biting us for some time.  There was a
>>> similar issue with accessing the two 32-bit halves of the 64-bit object
>>> header in Spur that meant I had to use a rewrite.  I’ll try and dig it
>>> out.  Perhaps we could collaborate on performing the same analysis and
>>> verifying that there is an issue with this header access code in gcc.
>>>
>>> >
>>> > Thanks
>>> >
>>> >> On Wed, Dec 11, 2019 at 6:02 PM Eliot Miranda <
>>> eliot.miranda at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>>> On Dec 11, 2019, at 8:45 AM, "tesonep at gmail.com" <tesonep at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> >>>
>>> >>> 
>>> >>> Hi Ken,
>>> >>> this is a problem in an optimization of GCC 8.3 (I am not sure what
>>> >>> other versions are impacted).
>>> >>> Basically it is generating bad a function, removing code that assumes
>>> >>> that is dead code.
>>> >>> Even though this is a bug in GCC, because there is not actual reason
>>> >>> to remove the code.
>>> >>> It is produced because the code is not written in a nice way.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Basically, if someone wants to fix it in the VM code is modifying a
>>> >>> single method:
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Spur64BitMemoryManager >> fetchLong32: fieldIndex ofFloatObject: oop
>>> >>>   "index by word size, and return a pointer as long as the word size"
>>> >>>
>>> >>>   | bits |
>>> >>>   (self isImmediateFloat: oop) ifFalse:
>>> >>>       [^self fetchLong32: fieldIndex ofObject: oop].
>>> >>>   bits := self smallFloatBitsOf: oop.
>>> >>>   ^ fieldIndex = 0
>>> >>>       ifTrue: [bits bitAnd: 16rFFFFFFFF]
>>> >>>       ifFalse: [bits >> 32]
>>> >>
>>> >> Thank you, Pablo.  I’ll integrate this quickly.  Can you possibly
>>> give me initials and time stamp?  It’s not necessary but helps that the
>>> code is marked as being your fix.
>>> >>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> The old method had a handwritten piece of C code to replace the last
>>> if:
>>> >>>
>>> >>> (self cCoerceSimple: (self addressOf: bits) to: #'int *') at:
>>> fieldIndex
>>> >>>
>>> >>> I assume it was done to handle a different kind of endianness, but
>>> the
>>> >>> single sender of this message is already doing the handling and
>>> having
>>> >>> different behavior depending on the endianness.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> With this fix the build can still be executed with -O2 optimization
>>> in GCC 8.3
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Cheers,
>>> >>>
>>> >>>> On Sat, Dec 7, 2019 at 4:20 PM <ken.dickey at whidbey.com> wrote:
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>> Have you tried switching off compiler optimisations?
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> Ah!  I had forgotten that one.  I thought that was changed in mvm.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> Image works fine noe (but more slowly!) on aarch64 Alpine Linux
>>> >>>> (musl+busybox).
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> I am just out the door fir a couple of days but will try fdlib on
>>> >>>> return.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> Thanks again to all!
>>> >>>> -KenD
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> --
>>> >>> Pablo Tesone.
>>> >>> tesonep at gmail.com
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> > Pablo Tesone.
>>> > tesonep at gmail.com
>>>
>>
>
> --
> Clément Béra
> https://clementbera.github.io/
> https://clementbera.wordpress.com/
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/vm-dev/attachments/20191218/7d69ad53/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Vm-dev mailing list