Re: [fpc-devel] Progress on reviewing x86_64 optimizer overhaul and node semantic pass
> For example, if I have changes in separate files that I want to split up, how > might one go about it without manually modiying the patch files? (As an easy > example, I split up the uComplex patches into two... one with the alignment > and vectorcall changes, and the other with the "const" modifier in the > parameters). As an option, you can apply patches and create new ones with e.g. VCS->Create patch in IDEA where you can select which files and which changes within each file should go to the patch. --- Best regards, George ___ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org https://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
Re: [fpc-devel] Progress on reviewing x86_64 optimizer overhaul and node semantic pass
Thanks George, As Florian stated, my work on the optimiser overhaul has been rejected because of how intertwined it is, along with some elements of 'code smell', but there's plenty to salvage and he hasn't slammed the door on the concept. I'm still learning to use git and patches, especially with splitting up changes. For example, if I have changes in separate files that I want to split up, how might one go about it without manually modiying the patch files? (As an easy example, I split up the uComplex patches into two... one with the alignment and vectorcall changes, and the other with the "const" modifier in the parameters). I haven't heard anything regarding the node semantic pass yet. Gareth aka. Kit On 28/10/2019 17:29, George Bakhtadze wrote: > Oh yeah, conflict resolution is the thing nobody really gets right, but TGit is > a bit less wrong. > I've pretty much resigned myself to Ctrl-F ">"... I use Intellij IDEA as VCS client (both git and svn supported). Patches, partial commits and conflicts resolution (automatic for many cases) are there. Yes, it's not a git client but a fully featured IDE but as bonus, with a certain plugin it supports Pascal language. ;) I hope it'll help to get these changes into codebase as patches improving compiled code performance are very important at least for me. Thanks to Gareth for this work! --- Best regard, George ___ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org https://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel -- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus ___ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org https://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
Re: [fpc-devel] Progress on reviewing x86_64 optimizer overhaul and node semantic pass
> Oh yeah, conflict resolution is the thing nobody really gets right, but TGit is> a bit less wrong.> I've pretty much resigned myself to Ctrl-F ">"... I use Intellij IDEA as VCS client (both git and svn supported).Patches, partial commits and conflicts resolution (automatic for many cases) are there. Yes, it's not a git client but a fully featured IDE but as bonus, with a certain plugin it supports Pascal language. ;) I hope it'll help to get these changes into codebase as patches improving compiled code performance are very important at least for me. Thanks to Gareth for this work! ---Best regard, George ___ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org https://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
Re: [fpc-devel] Progress on reviewing x86_64 optimizer overhaul and node semantic pass
On 10/27/2019 08:16 PM, Martok wrote: > Am 27.10.2019 um 17:48 schrieb Florian Klämpfl: >>> I guess the main difference is whether one prefers side-by-side >>> diffs or udiffs. >> >> In particular partial commits as well as conflict resolution work much >> better with TortoiseGit for me. > > Oh yeah, conflict resolution is the thing nobody really gets right, but TGit > is > a bit less wrong. > I've pretty much resigned myself to Ctrl-F ">"... Have you tried meld? Works for me in combination with git gui -- Ewald ___ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org https://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
Re: [fpc-devel] Progress on reviewing x86_64 optimizer overhaul and node semantic pass
On Sun, 27 Oct 2019, Martok wrote: Am 27.10.2019 um 17:48 schrieb Florian Klämpfl: I guess the main difference is whether one prefers side-by-side diffs or udiffs. In particular partial commits as well as conflict resolution work much better with TortoiseGit for me. Oh yeah, conflict resolution is the thing nobody really gets right, but TGit is a bit less wrong. I've pretty much resigned myself to Ctrl-F ">"... By the way, many people seem to use git on the client side... I remember there were talks about moving the main repo to git. What happened to that? Boring job nobody wants to do? Haha, thought so :D Not really. We will move to git after 3.2 is out. Moving now would interfere with the release process too much. Michael.___ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org https://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
Re: [fpc-devel] Progress on reviewing x86_64 optimizer overhaul and node semantic pass
Am 27.10.2019 um 17:48 schrieb Florian Klämpfl: >> I guess the main difference is whether one prefers side-by-side >> diffs or udiffs. > > In particular partial commits as well as conflict resolution work much > better with TortoiseGit for me. Oh yeah, conflict resolution is the thing nobody really gets right, but TGit is a bit less wrong. I've pretty much resigned myself to Ctrl-F ">"... >> By the way, many people seem to use git on the client side... I remember >> there >> were talks about moving the main repo to git. What happened to that? > > Boring job nobody wants to do? Haha, thought so :D Best, Sebastian ___ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org https://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
Re: [fpc-devel] Progress on reviewing x86_64 optimizer overhaul and node semantic pass
Hi, I use TortoiseHg and then a Mercurial to Git converter... Unfortunately the linux distributions do not want to maintain it and most ship with an outdated TortoiseHg in their package management Best, Benito On 27.10.19 17:48, Florian Klämpfl wrote: Am 27.10.19 um 15:32 schrieb Martok: cover one single topic. Today, using e.g. TortoiseGit on Windows (sorry, on Linux there is no tool which comes close) such patches can be re-arranged without too much hazzle. Just plain ol' git-gui can also do it. SmartGit is cross-platform and also pretty nice. I use SmartGit on linux, but neither SmartGit nor git-gui come close to TortoiseGit for me. I guess the main difference is whether one prefers side-by-side diffs or udiffs. In particular partial commits as well as conflict resolution work much better with TortoiseGit for me. By the way, many people seem to use git on the client side... I remember there were talks about moving the main repo to git. What happened to that? Boring job nobody wants to do? ___ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org https://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel ___ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org https://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
Re: [fpc-devel] Progress on reviewing x86_64 optimizer overhaul and node semantic pass
Am 27.10.19 um 15:32 schrieb Martok: cover one single topic. Today, using e.g. TortoiseGit on Windows (sorry, on Linux there is no tool which comes close) such patches can be re-arranged without too much hazzle. Just plain ol' git-gui can also do it. SmartGit is cross-platform and also pretty nice. I use SmartGit on linux, but neither SmartGit nor git-gui come close to TortoiseGit for me. I guess the main difference is whether one prefers side-by-side diffs or udiffs. In particular partial commits as well as conflict resolution work much better with TortoiseGit for me. By the way, many people seem to use git on the client side... I remember there were talks about moving the main repo to git. What happened to that? Boring job nobody wants to do? ___ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org https://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
Re: [fpc-devel] Progress on reviewing x86_64 optimizer overhaul and node semantic pass
> cover one single topic. Today, using e.g. TortoiseGit on Windows (sorry, > on Linux there is no tool which comes close) such patches can be > re-arranged without too much hazzle. Just plain ol' git-gui can also do it. SmartGit is cross-platform and also pretty nice. I guess the main difference is whether one prefers side-by-side diffs or udiffs. By the way, many people seem to use git on the client side... I remember there were talks about moving the main repo to git. What happened to that? Best, Sebastian ___ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org https://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
Re: [fpc-devel] Progress on reviewing x86_64 optimizer overhaul and node semantic pass
Am 26.10.19 um 16:47 schrieb J. Gareth Moreton: Hi Florian, That seems like a fair assessment. I'll see what I can do, especially as I have a design spec to go by, so maybe there's stuff to salvage and re-implement. If I recall, there was a similar TODO in the current code and it just got moved, but I'll double-check that. I've seen 'goto' used a few times in the code but wasn't sure what the policy was on that. Generally I use a "repeat... until True;" loop with a "Continue;" - is that an okay substitution? Since you're suggesting more bite-sized chunks, I think the first thing I'll do is overhaul the jump optimisations, since they caused significant improvements in places that are independent of reducing the optimiser passes. Yes. Those are indeed useful. Make yourself familiar how to do partial commits with TortoiseGit, this works very well: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/32527097/can-you-do-partial-commit-in-tortoisegit In combination with rebasing you can quickly redo the patches to refactor out this part. ___ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org https://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
Re: [fpc-devel] Progress on reviewing x86_64 optimizer overhaul and node semantic pass
Still, if anything, contributing to the compiler like this and having patches rejected is teaching me to be a better coder, so thank you Florian! Gareth aka. Kit -- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus ___ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org https://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
Re: [fpc-devel] Progress on reviewing x86_64 optimizer overhaul and node semantic pass
Sorry, I meant a "repeat... until False;" loop, using "Break" or "Exit" statements when I actually want to leave it, and "Continue" for the 'not-a-goto' statement! On 26/10/2019 15:47, J. Gareth Moreton wrote: Hi Florian, That seems like a fair assessment. I'll see what I can do, especially as I have a design spec to go by, so maybe there's stuff to salvage and re-implement. If I recall, there was a similar TODO in the current code and it just got moved, but I'll double-check that. I've seen 'goto' used a few times in the code but wasn't sure what the policy was on that. Generally I use a "repeat... until True;" loop with a "Continue;" - is that an okay substitution? Since you're suggesting more bite-sized chunks, I think the first thing I'll do is overhaul the jump optimisations, since they caused significant improvements in places that are independent of reducing the optimiser passes. Gareth aka. Kit On 26/10/2019 13:26, Florian Klämpfl wrote: Am 18.10.19 um 18:07 schrieb J. Gareth Moreton: Hi everyone, How is everyone doing? Sorry for my silence - been a bit tied up with things in life. Anyway, that aside, has there been any further progress on reviewing the x86_64 optimizer overhaul over at https://bugs.freepascal.org/view.php?id=34628? I ask because I've sort-of blocked myself in any further improvements to the peephole optimizer. I had meanwhile a look at it and to be honest, I am against applying the remainders in its current form. - First, the patches are inter-winded and the single patches do not cover one single topic. Today, using e.g. TortoiseGit on Windows (sorry, on Linux there is no tool which comes close) such patches can be re-arranged without too much hazzle. - Breaking the principle of the multiple optimizer passes is reasonable on the one hand, on the other hand it makes complicated code even more complicated and in particular as only the optimizer benefits, I see no reason to do so. In particular in combination with using gotos, the price being payed regarding maintainability is very high. - Also things like ConditionalJumpShortcut in aoptx86.pas containing arm and aarch64 defines does not convince me regarding the patches. - Patches contains open todo: "TODO: FIXME removing the first instruction fails" I would really like to see parts of the patch applied, but this requires that it is re-arranged in small, oversee-able changes. ___ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org https://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel -- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus ___ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org https://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
Re: [fpc-devel] Progress on reviewing x86_64 optimizer overhaul and node semantic pass
Hi Florian, That seems like a fair assessment. I'll see what I can do, especially as I have a design spec to go by, so maybe there's stuff to salvage and re-implement. If I recall, there was a similar TODO in the current code and it just got moved, but I'll double-check that. I've seen 'goto' used a few times in the code but wasn't sure what the policy was on that. Generally I use a "repeat... until True;" loop with a "Continue;" - is that an okay substitution? Since you're suggesting more bite-sized chunks, I think the first thing I'll do is overhaul the jump optimisations, since they caused significant improvements in places that are independent of reducing the optimiser passes. Gareth aka. Kit On 26/10/2019 13:26, Florian Klämpfl wrote: Am 18.10.19 um 18:07 schrieb J. Gareth Moreton: Hi everyone, How is everyone doing? Sorry for my silence - been a bit tied up with things in life. Anyway, that aside, has there been any further progress on reviewing the x86_64 optimizer overhaul over at https://bugs.freepascal.org/view.php?id=34628? I ask because I've sort-of blocked myself in any further improvements to the peephole optimizer. I had meanwhile a look at it and to be honest, I am against applying the remainders in its current form. - First, the patches are inter-winded and the single patches do not cover one single topic. Today, using e.g. TortoiseGit on Windows (sorry, on Linux there is no tool which comes close) such patches can be re-arranged without too much hazzle. - Breaking the principle of the multiple optimizer passes is reasonable on the one hand, on the other hand it makes complicated code even more complicated and in particular as only the optimizer benefits, I see no reason to do so. In particular in combination with using gotos, the price being payed regarding maintainability is very high. - Also things like ConditionalJumpShortcut in aoptx86.pas containing arm and aarch64 defines does not convince me regarding the patches. - Patches contains open todo: "TODO: FIXME removing the first instruction fails" I would really like to see parts of the patch applied, but this requires that it is re-arranged in small, oversee-able changes. ___ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org https://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel -- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus ___ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org https://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
Re: [fpc-devel] Progress on reviewing x86_64 optimizer overhaul and node semantic pass
Am 18.10.19 um 18:07 schrieb J. Gareth Moreton: Hi everyone, How is everyone doing? Sorry for my silence - been a bit tied up with things in life. Anyway, that aside, has there been any further progress on reviewing the x86_64 optimizer overhaul over at https://bugs.freepascal.org/view.php?id=34628? I ask because I've sort-of blocked myself in any further improvements to the peephole optimizer. I had meanwhile a look at it and to be honest, I am against applying the remainders in its current form. - First, the patches are inter-winded and the single patches do not cover one single topic. Today, using e.g. TortoiseGit on Windows (sorry, on Linux there is no tool which comes close) such patches can be re-arranged without too much hazzle. - Breaking the principle of the multiple optimizer passes is reasonable on the one hand, on the other hand it makes complicated code even more complicated and in particular as only the optimizer benefits, I see no reason to do so. In particular in combination with using gotos, the price being payed regarding maintainability is very high. - Also things like ConditionalJumpShortcut in aoptx86.pas containing arm and aarch64 defines does not convince me regarding the patches. - Patches contains open todo: "TODO: FIXME removing the first instruction fails" I would really like to see parts of the patch applied, but this requires that it is re-arranged in small, oversee-able changes. ___ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org https://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
[fpc-devel] Progress on reviewing x86_64 optimizer overhaul and node semantic pass
Hi everyone, How is everyone doing? Sorry for my silence - been a bit tied up with things in life. Anyway, that aside, has there been any further progress on reviewing the x86_64 optimizer overhaul over at https://bugs.freepascal.org/view.php?id=34628? I ask because I've sort-of blocked myself in any further improvements to the peephole optimizer. The other one that requires further review is the node semantic pass work over at https://bugs.freepascal.org/view.php?id=35857 - I figure there could be some improvements I could make, especially in regards to efficiency, but it would be easier to do with the applied patch rather than from scratch. Also, some future optimisations might benefit from further analysis of node structures. For example, if the Free Pascal Compiler is to build a project supporting AVX and FMA, it would be easier to convert vectored addition and multiplication routines into a single fused multiply-add instruction at the node level instead of in the peephole optimizer - true, it would still be possible to do it at this stage (and it might still have to in order to catch every possible case), but there's a risk that the vector is broken up into individual scalars before it reaches the peephole optimizer. In particular, I'm looking at units like "uComplex" that would greatly benefit from this, since the 'complex' data type is generally stored as two sequential double-precision floating-point values, this exactly filling a single XMM register where operations like addition and subtraction are component-wise (also, the operations as defined in the unit are inlined, so theoretically can collapse into a single (V)ADDPD instruction). I'm still working on 'pure' functions on the side, so this is not a lost cause! Gareth aka. Kit -- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus ___ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org https://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
