On 11/13/22 16:05, Christoph Muellner wrote:
From: Christoph Müllner <christoph.muell...@vrull.eu>
This patch implements expansions for the cmpstrsi and the cmpstrnsi
builtins using Zbb instructions (if available).
This allows to inline calls to strcmp() and strncmp().
The expansion basically emits a peeled comparison sequence (i.e. a peeled
comparison loop) which compares XLEN bits per step if possible.
The emitted sequence can be controlled, by setting the maximum number
of compared bytes (-mstring-compare-inline-limit).
gcc/ChangeLog:
* config/riscv/riscv-protos.h (riscv_expand_strn_compare): New
prototype.
* config/riscv/riscv-string.cc (GEN_EMIT_HELPER3): New helper
macros.
(GEN_EMIT_HELPER2): New helper macros.
(expand_strncmp_zbb_sequence): New function.
(riscv_emit_str_compare_zbb): New function.
(riscv_expand_strn_compare): New function.
* config/riscv/riscv.md (cmpstrnsi): Invoke expansion functions
for strn_compare.
(cmpstrsi): Invoke expansion functions for strn_compare.
* config/riscv/riscv.opt: Add new parameter
'-mstring-compare-inline-limit'.
Presumably the hybrid inline + out of line approach is to capture the
fact that most strings compare unequal early, then punt out to the
library if they don't follow that model? It looks like we're structured
for that case by peeling iterations rather than having a fully inlined
approach. Just want to confirm...
I was a bit worried about the "readahead" problem that arises when
reading more than a byte and a NUL is found in the first string. If
you're not careful, the readahead of the second string could fault. But
it looks like we avoid that by requiring word alignment on both strings.
+
+/* Emit a string comparison sequence using Zbb instruction.
+
+ OPERANDS[0] is the target (result).
+ OPERANDS[1] is the first source.
+ OPERANDS[2] is the second source.
+ If NO_LENGTH is zero, then:
+ OPERANDS[3] is the length.
+ OPERANDS[4] is the alignment in bytes.
+ If NO_LENGTH is nonzero, then:
+ OPERANDS[3] is the alignment in bytes.
Ugh. I guess it's inevitable unless we want to drop the array and pass
each element individually (in which case we'd pass a NULL_RTX in the
case we don't have a length argument).
I'd like to give others a chance to chime in here. Everything looks
sensible here, but I may have missed something. So give the other
maintainers a couple days to chime in before committing.
Jeff
