-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.8k
feat(x64): fuse *_overflow + brif to jo/jb #13919
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Open
playX18
wants to merge
2
commits into
bytecodealliance:main
Choose a base branch
from
playX18:ap/fuse-overflow
base: main
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
+653
−4
Open
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
2 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Unfortunately I don't think we'll want to take this as-is: it's too complex, in an area where we've already had some really subtle and difficult-to-reason-about bugs.
This set of conditions crosses several abstraction levels: it reasons about flag materialization, and especially about "another use of the same value", and then does code-motion if not. That kind of just-so optimization is both precarious (it's distributed invariant maintenance: the main lowering algorithm is responsible for putting defs before uses, but we're overriding that logic on the result of the overflow-checking op because we think it shouldn't matter to do it late in some blocks) and brittle (instruction order can suddenly influence things in unexpected and spooky-action-at-a-distance ways).
For that reason I think this "absorption" is an antipattern, a patch on top of the design that does not fit well with it, and we should instead try to use mechanisms we already have and/or come up with a more general framework that is less brittle and can be more fully integrated into the lowering algorithm.
Would you be willing to attend the next Cranelift meeting? I'd be happy to discuss further and we can try to come up with better approaches here...
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yes, I would like to join the next Cranelift meeting. How do I get an invite? :)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
cc @fitzgen for a calendar invite