On Mon, 22 May 2023, Sui Jingfeng <15330273260@xxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2023/5/22 19:29, Jani Nikula wrote:
>> On Thu, 18 May 2023, Sui Jingfeng <15330273260@xxxxxx> wrote:
>>> On 2023/5/17 18:59, David Laight wrote:
>>>> From: 15330273260@xxxxxx
>>>>> Sent: 16 May 2023 18:30
>>>>>
>>>>> From: Sui Jingfeng <suijingfeng@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>
>>>>> Both mode->crtc_htotal and mode->crtc_vtotal are u16 type,
>>>>> mode->crtc_htotal * mode->crtc_vtotal will results a unsigned type.
>>>> Nope, u16 gets promoted to 'signed int' and the result of the
>>>> multiply is also signed.
>>> I believe that signed or unsigned is dependent on the declaration.
>>>
>>> I am talk about the math, while you are talking about compiler.
>>>
>>> I admit that u16 gets promoted to 'signed int' is true, but this is
>>> irrelevant,
>>>
>>> the point is how to understand the returned value.
>>>
>>>
>>> How does the compiler generate the code is one thing, how do we
>>> interpret the result is another
>>>
>>> How does the compiler generate the code is NOT determined by us, while
>>> how do we interpret the result is determined by us.
>>>
>>>
>>> I believe that using a u32 type to interpret the result(u16 * u16) is
>>> always true, it is true in the perspective of *math*.
>>>
>>> Integer promotions is the details of C program language. If the result
>>> of the multiply is signed, then there are risks that
>>>
>>> the result is negative, what's the benefit to present this risk to the
>>> programmer?
>>>
>>> What's the benefit to tell me(and others) that u16 * u16 yield a signed
>>> value? and can be negative?
>>>
>>> Using int type as the return type bring concerns to the programmer and
>>> the user of the function,
>>>
>>> even though this is not impossible in practice.
>> In general, do not use unsigned types in arithmethic to avoid negative
>> values, because most people will be tripped over by integer promotion
>> rules, and you'll get negative values anyway.
>>
>> I'll bet most people will be surprised to see what this prints:
>>
>> #include <stdio.h>
>> #include <stdint.h>
>>
>> int main(void)
>> {
>> uint16_t x = 0xffff;
>> uint16_t y = 0xffff;
>> uint64_t z = x * y;
>>
>> printf("0x%016lx\n", z);
>> printf("%ld\n", z);
>
> Here, please replace the "%ld\n" with the "%lu\n", then you will see the
> difference.
>
> you are casting the variable 'z' to signed value, "%d" is for printing
> signed value, and "%u" is for printing unsigned value.
>
>
> Your simple code explained exactly why you are still in confusion,
Am I?
Take a look at the values, and explain the math.
BR,
Jani.
>
> that is u16 * u16 can yield a negative value if you use the int as the
> return type. Because it overflowed.
>
>> printf("%d\n", x * y);
>> }
>>
>> And it's not that different from what you have below. Your patch doesn't
>> change anything, and doesn't make it any less confusing.
>>
>> BR,
>> Jani.
>>
>>
>>>>> Using a u32 is enough to store the result, but considering that the
>>>>> result will be casted to u64 soon after. We use a u64 type directly.
>>>>> So there no need to cast it to signed type and cast back then.
>>>> ....
>>>>> - int frame_size = mode->crtc_htotal * mode->crtc_vtotal;
>>>>> + u64 frame_size = mode->crtc_htotal * mode->crtc_vtotal;
>>>> ...
>>>>> - framedur_ns = div_u64((u64) frame_size * 1000000, dotclock);
>>>>> + framedur_ns = div_u64(frame_size * 1000000, dotclock);
>>>> The (u64) cast is there to extend the value to 64bits, not
>>>> because the original type is signed.
>>> Sorry about my expression, I think my sentence did not mention anything
>>> about 'because the original type is signed'.
>>>
>>> In the contrary, my patch eliminated the concerns to the reviewer. It
>>> say that the results of the multiply can't be negative.
>>>
>>> My intent is to tell the compiler we want a unsigned return type, but
>>> GCC emit 'imul' instruction for the multiply......
>>>
>>> I'm using u64 as the return type, because div_u64() function accept a
>>> u64 type value as its first argument.
>>>
>>>> The compiler will detect that the old code is a 32x32 multiply
>>>> where a 64bit result is needed, that may not be true for the
>>>> changed code (it would need to track back as far as the u16s).
>>> I don't believe my code could be wrong.
>>>
>>> when you use the word 'may', you are saying that it could be wrong after
>>> apply my patch.
>>>
>>> Then you have to find at least one test example to prove you point, in
>>> which case my codes generate wrong results.
>>>
>>> Again I don't believe you could find one.
>>>
>>>> It is not uncommon to force a 64bit result from a multiply
>>>> by making the constant 64bit. As in:
>>>> div_u64(frame_size * 1000000ULL, dotclock);
>>> In fact, After apply this patch, the ASM code generated is same with before.
>>>
>>> This may because the GCC is smart enough to generate optimized code in
>>> either case,
>>>
>>> I think It could be different with a different optimization-level.
>>>
>>> I have tested this patch on three different architecture, I can not
>>> find error still.
>>>
>>> Below is the assembly extract on x86-64: because GCC generate the same
>>> code in either case,
>>>
>>> so I pasted only one copy here.
>>>
>>>
>>> 0000000000000530 <drm_calc_timestamping_constants>:
>>> 530: f3 0f 1e fa endbr64
>>> 534: e8 00 00 00 00 callq 539
>>> <drm_calc_timestamping_constants+0x9>
>>> 539: 55 push %rbp
>>> 53a: 48 89 e5 mov %rsp,%rbp
>>> 53d: 41 57 push %r15
>>> 53f: 41 56 push %r14
>>> 541: 41 55 push %r13
>>> 543: 41 54 push %r12
>>> 545: 53 push %rbx
>>> 546: 48 83 ec 18 sub $0x18,%rsp
>>> 54a: 4c 8b 3f mov (%rdi),%r15
>>> 54d: 41 8b 87 6c 01 00 00 mov 0x16c(%r15),%eax
>>> 554: 85 c0 test %eax,%eax
>>> 556: 0f 84 ec 00 00 00 je 648
>>> <drm_calc_timestamping_constants+0x118>
>>> 55c: 44 8b 87 90 00 00 00 mov 0x90(%rdi),%r8d
>>> 563: 49 89 fc mov %rdi,%r12
>>> 566: 44 39 c0 cmp %r8d,%eax
>>> 569: 0f 86 40 01 00 00 jbe 6af
>>> <drm_calc_timestamping_constants+0x17f>
>>> 56f: 44 8b 76 1c mov 0x1c(%rsi),%r14d
>>> 573: 49 8b 8f 40 01 00 00 mov 0x140(%r15),%rcx
>>> 57a: 48 89 f3 mov %rsi,%rbx
>>> 57d: 45 85 f6 test %r14d,%r14d
>>> 580: 0f 8e d5 00 00 00 jle 65b
>>> <drm_calc_timestamping_constants+0x12b>
>>> 586: 0f b7 43 2a movzwl 0x2a(%rbx),%eax
>>> 58a: 49 63 f6 movslq %r14d,%rsi
>>> 58d: 31 d2 xor %edx,%edx
>>> 58f: 48 89 c7 mov %rax,%rdi
>>> 592: 48 69 c0 40 42 0f 00 imul $0xf4240,%rax,%rax
>>> 599: 48 f7 f6 div %rsi
>>> 59c: 31 d2 xor %edx,%edx
>>> 59e: 48 89 45 d0 mov %rax,-0x30(%rbp)
>>> 5a2: 0f b7 43 38 movzwl 0x38(%rbx),%eax
>>> 5a6: 0f af c7 imul %edi,%eax
>>> 5a9: 48 98 cltq
>>> 5ab: 48 69 c0 40 42 0f 00 imul $0xf4240,%rax,%rax
>>> 5b2: 48 f7 f6 div %rsi
>>> 5b5: 41 89 c5 mov %eax,%r13d
>>> 5b8: f6 43 18 10 testb $0x10,0x18(%rbx)
>>> 5bc: 74 0a je 5c8
>>> <drm_calc_timestamping_constants+0x98>
>>> 5be: 41 c1 ed 1f shr $0x1f,%r13d
>>> 5c2: 41 01 c5 add %eax,%r13d
>>> 5c5: 41 d1 fd sar %r13d
>>> 5c8: 4b 8d 04 c0 lea (%r8,%r8,8),%rax
>>> 5cc: 48 89 de mov %rbx,%rsi
>>> 5cf: 49 8d 3c 40 lea (%r8,%rax,2),%rdi
>>> 5d3: 8b 45 d0 mov -0x30(%rbp),%eax
>>> 5d6: 48 c1 e7 04 shl $0x4,%rdi
>>> 5da: 48 01 cf add %rcx,%rdi
>>> 5dd: 89 47 78 mov %eax,0x78(%rdi)
>>> 5e0: 48 83 ef 80 sub $0xffffffffffffff80,%rdi
>>> 5e4: 44 89 6f f4 mov %r13d,-0xc(%rdi)
>>> 5e8: e8 00 00 00 00 callq 5ed
>>> <drm_calc_timestamping_constants+0xbd>
>>> 5ed: 0f b7 53 2e movzwl 0x2e(%rbx),%edx
>>> 5f1: 0f b7 43 38 movzwl 0x38(%rbx),%eax
>>> 5f5: 44 0f b7 4b 2a movzwl 0x2a(%rbx),%r9d
>>> 5fa: 45 8b 44 24 60 mov 0x60(%r12),%r8d
>>> 5ff: 4d 85 ff test %r15,%r15
>>> 602: 0f 84 87 00 00 00 je 68f
>>> <drm_calc_timestamping_constants+0x15f>
>>> 608: 49 8b 77 08 mov 0x8(%r15),%rsi
>>> 60c: 52 push %rdx
>>> 60d: 31 ff xor %edi,%edi
>>> 60f: 48 c7 c1 00 00 00 00 mov $0x0,%rcx
>>> 616: 50 push %rax
>>> 617: 31 d2 xor %edx,%edx
>>> 619: e8 00 00 00 00 callq 61e
>>> <drm_calc_timestamping_constants+0xee>
>>> 61e: 45 8b 44 24 60 mov 0x60(%r12),%r8d
>>> 623: 4d 8b 7f 08 mov 0x8(%r15),%r15
>>> 627: 5f pop %rdi
>>> 628: 41 59 pop %r9
>>> 62a: 8b 45 d0 mov -0x30(%rbp),%eax
>>> 62d: 48 c7 c1 00 00 00 00 mov $0x0,%rcx
>>> 634: 4c 89 fe mov %r15,%rsi
>>> 637: 45 89 f1 mov %r14d,%r9d
>>> 63a: 31 d2 xor %edx,%edx
>>> 63c: 31 ff xor %edi,%edi
>>> 63e: 50 push %rax
>>> 63f: 41 55 push %r13
>>> 641: e8 00 00 00 00 callq 646
>>> <drm_calc_timestamping_constants+0x116>
>>> 646: 59 pop %rcx
>>> 647: 5e pop %rsi
>>> 648: 48 8d 65 d8 lea -0x28(%rbp),%rsp
>>> 64c: 5b pop %rbx
>>> 64d: 41 5c pop %r12
>>> 64f: 41 5d pop %r13
>>> 651: 41 5e pop %r14
>>> 653: 41 5f pop %r15
>>> 655: 5d pop %rbp
>>> 656: e9 00 00 00 00 jmpq 65b
>>> <drm_calc_timestamping_constants+0x12b>
>>> 65b: 41 8b 54 24 60 mov 0x60(%r12),%edx
>>> 660: 49 8b 7f 08 mov 0x8(%r15),%rdi
>>> 664: 44 89 45 c4 mov %r8d,-0x3c(%rbp)
>>> 668: 45 31 ed xor %r13d,%r13d
>>> 66b: 48 c7 c6 00 00 00 00 mov $0x0,%rsi
>>> 672: 48 89 4d c8 mov %rcx,-0x38(%rbp)
>>> 676: e8 00 00 00 00 callq 67b
>>> <drm_calc_timestamping_constants+0x14b>
>>> 67b: c7 45 d0 00 00 00 00 movl $0x0,-0x30(%rbp)
>>> 682: 44 8b 45 c4 mov -0x3c(%rbp),%r8d
>>> 686: 48 8b 4d c8 mov -0x38(%rbp),%rcx
>>> 68a: e9 39 ff ff ff jmpq 5c8
>>> <drm_calc_timestamping_constants+0x98>
>>> 68f: 52 push %rdx
>>> 690: 48 c7 c1 00 00 00 00 mov $0x0,%rcx
>>> 697: 31 d2 xor %edx,%edx
>>> 699: 31 f6 xor %esi,%esi
>>> 69b: 50 push %rax
>>> 69c: 31 ff xor %edi,%edi
>>> 69e: e8 00 00 00 00 callq 6a3
>>> <drm_calc_timestamping_constants+0x173>
>>> 6a3: 45 8b 44 24 60 mov 0x60(%r12),%r8d
>>> 6a8: 58 pop %rax
>>> 6a9: 5a pop %rdx
>>> 6aa: e9 7b ff ff ff jmpq 62a
>>> <drm_calc_timestamping_constants+0xfa>
>>> 6af: 49 8b 7f 08 mov 0x8(%r15),%rdi
>>> 6b3: 4c 8b 67 50 mov 0x50(%rdi),%r12
>>> 6b7: 4d 85 e4 test %r12,%r12
>>> 6ba: 74 25 je 6e1
>>> <drm_calc_timestamping_constants+0x1b1>
>>> 6bc: e8 00 00 00 00 callq 6c1
>>> <drm_calc_timestamping_constants+0x191>
>>> 6c1: 48 c7 c1 00 00 00 00 mov $0x0,%rcx
>>> 6c8: 4c 89 e2 mov %r12,%rdx
>>> 6cb: 48 c7 c7 00 00 00 00 mov $0x0,%rdi
>>> 6d2: 48 89 c6 mov %rax,%rsi
>>> 6d5: e8 00 00 00 00 callq 6da
>>> <drm_calc_timestamping_constants+0x1aa>
>>> 6da: 0f 0b ud2
>>> 6dc: e9 67 ff ff ff jmpq 648
>>> <drm_calc_timestamping_constants+0x118>
>>> 6e1: 4c 8b 27 mov (%rdi),%r12
>>> 6e4: eb d6 jmp 6bc
>>> <drm_calc_timestamping_constants+0x18c>
>>> 6e6: 66 2e 0f 1f 84 00 00 nopw %cs:0x0(%rax,%rax,1)
>>> 6ed: 00 00 00
>>> 6f0: 90 nop
>>> 6f1: 90 nop
>>> 6f2: 90 nop
>>> 6f3: 90 nop
>>> 6f4: 90 nop
>>> 6f5: 90 nop
>>> 6f6: 90 nop
>>> 6f7: 90 nop
>>> 6f8: 90 nop
>>> 6f9: 90 nop
>>> 6fa: 90 nop
>>> 6fb: 90 nop
>>> 6fc: 90 nop
>>> 6fd: 90 nop
>>> 6fe: 90 nop
>>> 6ff: 90 nop
>>>
>>>
>>>> David
>>>>
>>>> -
>>>> Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
>>>> Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)
>>>>
--
Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Graphics Center
