When flags are invalidated but we're going to insert a new flag we end
up in a situation where we loaded the prior value from memory, claimed
unknown cache status (they were all invalid!), and then did an insert.
These instructions set all the flags to undefined and moves the
resulting bit in to CF. No need to calculate the deferred flags when
we are about to write over them.
We have supported this since #163 but we haven't been exposing the
feature in hwcap2.
We have exposed it in CPUID this entire time, just not in hwcap2.
Arm64 store with writeback when source register is the same register as
the address is undefined behaviour.
Depending on hardware details this can do a whole bunch of things.
This situation happens when the x86 code does `push rsp` which is quite
common for applications to do. We would then convert this to a `str x8, [x8, #-8]!`
Which results in undefined behaviour.
Now that redundant loads are optimized this showed up as an issue. Adds
a unit test to ensure we don't hit this again.
When the destination overlaps one of the sources we must be careful to
follow a movprfx rule.
```
The destination register must not refer to architectural register state
referenced by any other source operand register of this instruction.
```
We ended up in a situation in the vpmulh{u,}w AVX tests where zm was
overlapping the destination which violated that rule. This also
generated invalid code for this instruction.
```
[INFO] movprfx z6, z4
[INFO] umulh z6.h, p6/m, z6.h, z6.h
```
As seen, we were overwriting one of the sources because the destination
overlapped it. Now instead check if each individual overlap so invalid
code isn't generated.
InstCountCI results aren't affected since this only happens in
situations with multiple instructions.
Now that the RCLSE pass finally optimizes redundant loads again this
optimization that lives in the OpcodeDispatcher can be removed.
With InstCountCI reran, the pblendvb results don't change at all, as
expected.
This is taking steps to start fixing RCLSE which was started by #2700.
Same situation as that PR, since #2170 when we converted
{Load,Store}Context in to {Load,Store}Register we broke this pass
entirely. It hasn't been doing anything for redundant GPRs and FPRs
since at least November of last year.
Technically it was potentially still optimizing redundant MMX
accesses, but it is so broken that it doesn't matter.
Instead of going all in like #2700 did, tear down the pass and start
again. We are now /only/ optimizing redundant context/register loads.
This fixes an issue that comes up commonly where the same register used
as sources was getting loaded twice, causing redundant moves.
`packsswb xmm0, xmm0` for example was generating a four instruction
sequence instead of three instructions because we weren't eliminating
the redundant load.
Going to take reimplementing all the optimizations that this pass does
in steps. This way we can track any regression in the independent steps
unlike what happened in #2700.
Confirmed that Proton/Sonic Mania still works after this.
This is a new procfs symlink path that changes behaviour of binfmt_misc
when exposed. We need to check both procfs/exe and procfs/interpreter
and see if they exist AND also differ.
Once/if they do then we can disable a bunch of checking of paths once
they do. The fallback when none of this is supported has the same
behaviour has previously where it still does all the regular checking.
During binfmt_misc install cmake will check the kernel version for the
raw binfmt_misc writing. Which will never pass until we have a real
kernel version that it is upstreamed in.
For update-binfmts we add a new optional argument where the tool will
drop the flag if the host kernel version isn't new enough to handle the
option.
It turns out that pure SSA isn't a great choice for the sort of emulation we do.
On one hand, it discards information from the guest binary's register allocation
that would let us skip stuff. On the other hand, it doesn't have nearly as many
benefits in this setting as in a traditional compiler... We really *don't* want
to do global RA or really any global optimization. We assume the guest optimizer
did its job for x86, we just need to clean up the mess left from going x86 ->
arm. So we just need enough SSA to peephole optimize.
My concrete IR proposals are that:
* SSA values must be killed in the same block that they are defined.
* Explicit LoadGPR/StoreGPR instructions can be used for global persistence.
* LoadGPR/StoreGPR are eliminated in favour of SSA within a block.
This has a lot of nice properties for our setting:
* Except for some internal REP instruction emulation (etc), we already have
registers for everything that escapes block boundaries, so this form is very
easy to go into -- straightforward local value numbering, not a full into
SSA pass.
* Spilling is entirely local (if it happens at all), since everything is in
registers at block boundaries. This is excellent, because Belady's algorithm
lets us spill nearly optimally in linear-time for individual blocks. (And
the global version of Belady's algorithm is massively more complicated...)
A nice fit for a JIT.
Relatedly, it turns out allowing spilling is probably a decent decision,
since the same spiller code can be used to rematerialize constants in a
straightforward way. This is an issue with the current RA.
* Register assignment is entirely local. For the same reason, we can assign
registers "optimally" in linear time & memory (e.g. with linear scan). And
the impl is massively simpler than a full blown SSA-based tree scan RA. For
example, we don't have to worry about parallel copies or coalescing phis or
anything. Massively nicer algorithm to deal with.
* SSA value names can be block local which makes the validation implicit :~)
It also has remarkably few drawbacks, because we didn't want to do CFG global
optimization anyway given our time budget and the diminishng returns. The few
global optimizations we might want (flag escape analysis?) don't necessarily
benefit from pure SSA anyway.
Anyway, we explicitly don't want phi nodes in any of this. They're currently
unused. Let's just remove them so nobody gets the bright idea of changing that.
Signed-off-by: Alyssa Rosenzweig <alyssa@rosenzweig.io>
Now the calculation of PF is entirely deferred, by inverting our internal
representation of PF. All the (e.g.) logical op needs to do is store the low
8-bits of the result.
This is a bit of a mixed bag. Primary ALU ops all save an instruction, by
skip the XOR. Loading PF takes an extra instruction, that's expected. The tricky
cases are:
* Zeroing PF. This now requires writing 1 instead of 0, which may require an
extra move for the constant. Some of this will go away when we merge PF+AF
into a single register, which is next up on the list. In that case, the
two stores will turn into 1 `or`. So if we need to write a 1 to PF (zeroing
x86 view of PF), that will get absorbed into the or, if we also write AF. If
we leave AF undefined and need to write a 1, that's a single mov instruction
and we couldn't do better anyway if not inverted (since we'd still have a mov
wzr even then). So in view of the future work, this isn't something I'm
concerned about.
* Float comparisons that put Unordered into PF. These require an extra invert to
match the new convention. These are already so unnecessarily bloated that I'm
not convinced I'm making things materially worse here. But we realistically
need multiple destination support in the IR to fix this particular mess.
Signed-off-by: Alyssa Rosenzweig <alyssa@rosenzweig.io>
Now that PF calculation is deferred, the cost of calculating PF correctly should
be tolerable. Remove the speed hack to skip PF. It's fundamentally broken, and
there are enough broken things in FEX as it is that we don't need to maintain
this one ;-)
Signed-off-by: Alyssa Rosenzweig <alyssa@rosenzweig.io>
AF is calculated as:
((Src1 ^ Src2) ^ Res)[4]
Due to the extract, this is equivalent to
((Src1 ^ Src2) ^ (Res ^ 1))[4]
We already store (Res ^ 1) as the PF byte. So, it suffices to store
AF Byte = Src1 ^ Src2
and then we can recover the flag value
AF = (AF Byte ^ PF Byte)[4]
This saves an instruction from the AF calculation. It does couple PF/AF writes.
In practice, most instructions fall into one of these categories:
* Both PF and AF written together, the coupling is correct.
* PF written but AF invalidated, irrelevant.
* Both invalidated, irrelevant.
None of these require special handling. Where we do need special handling is
when we want to write them separately, in which case we can fix-up the value of
AF as appropriate.
Signed-off-by: Alyssa Rosenzweig <alyssa@rosenzweig.io>
Logical ops leave AF undefined so we can't expect it to be zero after. Mask the
result of lahf to avoid testing UB. These unit tests would regress from the work
in this MR otherwise.
Signed-off-by: Alyssa Rosenzweig <alyssa@rosenzweig.io>
Mai