[fpc-devel] Question on updating FPC packages
Marco van de Voort
fpc at pascalprogramming.org
Tue Oct 29 13:49:20 CET 2019
Op 2019-10-29 om 12:23 schreef J. Gareth Moreton:
> When it comes to testing vectorcall, uComplex isn't the best example
> actually because most of the operators are inlined. There are a
> number of tests under "tests/test/cg" that test vectorcall and the
> System V ABI using a Pascal implementation of the opaque __m128 type
> (the two ABIs should behave exactly the same when dealing with simple
The last time I checked it didn't vector anything at all. So only the
native vectorizing of the record of two singles would be nice.
Last time I checked in 2017, complexadd inlined looked something like this:
And I realize quite some rearrangements must be done.
> If anything though, the example function you gave (I'll need to
> double-check what ComplexScl does though, if it isn't a simple
It is simple multiplication of both real and imaginary with a scalar (as
opposed to complex*complex which has more terms).
> would be a pretty solid and heavy-duty test of the compiler attempting
> to vectorise the code - in an ideal world, individual calls to
> ComplexAdd and ComplexSub (which are simple + and - operations in
> uComplex) will compile into a single line of assembly language (ADDPD
> and SUBPD respectively). Nevertheless, one could disable the inlining
> to see how well the compiler handles the function chaining, since with
> aligned data, the result from XMM0 should be easily transposed in one
> go to another XMM register if not just left alone as parameter data
> for the next function.
Yes, it is just a somewhat realworld codebase to play with. It is MPL even.
More information about the fpc-devel