-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 13.3k
Optimize jumps in PartialOrd le #83819
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
Merged
bors
merged 1 commit into
rust-lang:master
from
AngelicosPhosphoros:issue-73338-fix-partial-eq-impl
Apr 5, 2021
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
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
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
@@ -0,0 +1,39 @@ | ||
// This test checks that comparison operation | ||
// generated by #[derive(PartialOrd)] | ||
// doesn't contain jumps for C enums | ||
|
||
// compile-flags: -Copt-level=3 | ||
|
||
#![crate_type="lib"] | ||
|
||
#[repr(u32)] | ||
#[derive(Copy, Clone, Eq, PartialEq, PartialOrd)] | ||
pub enum Foo { | ||
Zero, | ||
One, | ||
Two, | ||
} | ||
|
||
#[no_mangle] | ||
pub fn compare_less(a: Foo, b: Foo)->bool{ | ||
// CHECK-NOT: br {{.*}} | ||
a < b | ||
} | ||
|
||
#[no_mangle] | ||
pub fn compare_le(a: Foo, b: Foo)->bool{ | ||
// CHECK-NOT: br {{.*}} | ||
a <= b | ||
} | ||
|
||
#[no_mangle] | ||
pub fn compare_ge(a: Foo, b: Foo)->bool{ | ||
// CHECK-NOT: br {{.*}} | ||
a >= b | ||
} | ||
|
||
#[no_mangle] | ||
pub fn compare_greater(a: Foo, b: Foo)->bool{ | ||
// CHECK-NOT: br {{.*}} | ||
a > b | ||
} |
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.
It's interesting that this did not need a modification to ge -- maybe hints at some LLVM bug?
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.
Well, the
Option<Ordering>
has such u8 valuesso,
>=
compiles tocmp_result as u8 < 2
which easy to optimize.Old implementation of
<=
couldn't be optimized such easily because it was(255 == cmp_result || 0 == cmp_result)
which LLVM failed to optimize. After my change it becomes!((cmp_result+1) > 1)
which optimized much better.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.
Possibly, current version of LLVM handle comparison with 2 consequtive numbers better than with 2 different numbers.
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.
Makes sense, OK. Thanks!
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.
Any idea what the fallout would be if
Ordering
was changed from(Less, Equal, Greater) == (-1, 0, 1)
to(Less, Equal, Greater) == (0, 1, 2)
? I didn't find a guarantee for the underlying values being stable andimpl Ord for Ordering
only relies onLess < Equal < Greater
.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.
I don't know enough for this, I think.
Current solution could be profitable in conversion from
memcmp
results (compiler can dosign(memcmp(a, b))
to get Ordering).