General update: I've since found the reason for the GCC version check. It's not *broken* support (apologies for impugning GCC), but *inefficient* support via a muditi3 helper function. The version check is the version which added in-line code generation. For example, s390 support was added in March of 2017 and is part of the 7.1 release. I hvave to do some digging through gcc version history to find when it was added to various architectures. (And MIPS64v6 support is still lacking in gcc 9.) On Fri, 29 Mar 2019 at 15:25:58 -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 01:07:07PM +0000, George Spelvin wrote: >> I don't have easy access to an Alpha cross-compiler to test, but >> as it has UMULH, I suspect it would work, too. > > https://mirrors.edge.kernel.org/pub/tools/crosstool/ Thanks for the pointer; I have a working Alpha cross-compiler now. >> u64 get_random_u64(void); >> u64 get_random_max64(u64 range, u64 lim) >> { >> unsigned __int128 prod; >> do { >> prod = (unsigned __int128)get_random_u64() * range; >> } while (unlikely((u64)prod < lim)); >> return prod >> 64; >> } > >> MIPS: >> .L7: >> jal get_random_u64 >> nop >> dmultu $2,$17 >> mflo $3 >> sltu $4,$3,$16 >> bne $4,$0,.L7 >> mfhi $2 >> >> PowerPC: >> .L9: >> bl get_random_u64 >> nop >> mulld 9,3,31 >> mulhdu 3,3,31 >> cmpld 7,30,9 >> bgt 7,.L9 >> >> I like that the MIPS code leaves the high half of the product in >> the hi register until it tests the low half; I wish PowerPC would >> similarly move the mulhdu *after* the loop, > The MIPS code has the multiplication inside the loop as well, and even > the mfhi I think: MIPS has delay slots. Yes, it's in the delay slot, which is fine (the branch is unlikely, after all). But it does the compare (sltu) before accessing %hi, which is good as %hi often has a longer latency than %lo. (On out-of-order cores, of course, none of this matters.) > GCC treats the int128 as one register until it has expanded to RTL, and it > does not do such loop optimisations after that, apparently. > > File a PR please? https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Er... about what? The fact that the PowerPC code is not >> PowerPC: >> .L9: >> bl get_random_u64 >> nop >> mulld 9,3,31 >> cmpld 7,30,9 >> bgt 7,.L9 >> mulhdu 3,3,31 I'm not sure quite how to explain it in gcc-ese.
