Method for improved code generation in reduced instruction set computers

Abstract: A method for efficient generation of compiled code is presented in accordance with the preferred embodiment of the present invention. In order to gain significant performance advantage with a minimum of code expansion, out-of-line code sequences are used. An out-of-line code sequence is a series of instructions that are invoked by a simplified calling mechanism in which almost no state-saving is required. Additionally, out-of-line code sequences is designed so that a single copy can exist on a system and all processes running on that system can access it. A series of out-of-line code sequences can be generated, each member of the series being tailored to a particular combination of compile-time information.

Description: BACKGROUND One of the most enduring criticisms of Reduced Instruction Set Computer (RISC) architectures is that they are unable to handle complex operations efficiently. Critics of RISC-like architectures often suggest that applications which rely upon a high percentage of complex operations will execute slowly and/or suffer from excessive code size. By complex operation is meant a task which requires three or more of a machine's most basic instructions to complete. Some obvious and very important examples of complex operations are byte moves, string comparisons and decimal arithmetic. On the other hand, simple operation are those which require only one or two of a machine's most basic instructions to complete. In traditional Complex Instruction Set Computers (CISC) every machine instruction is performed by the execution of a corresponding microcode program. Microcode programs are made up of micro-instructions. Micro-instructions are instructions which a processor understands. In a sense, CISC systems are really computers inside of computers. The "outer" computer receives assembly language instructions and translates them to micro-instructions. The "inner" computer executes the micro-instructions. RISC systems, on the other hand, do not use micro-instructions, but execute computer instructions directly. This eliminates the overhead in CISC systems which is associated with transferring of control from the outer computer to the inner computer. In CISC computers, for simple operations, transfer overhead between the inner and the outer computer often requires more time than the actual performance of the operations. However, for complex operations which require dozens or even hundreds of micro-instructions to complete, the overhead for transferring from the outer computer to the inner computer in CISC systems becomes insignificant. The execution time of micro-instructions becomes the most significant factor in speed of execution. Typically, execution of instructions on a RISC system takes longer than execution of equivalent micro-instructions on a comparable CISC system. Therefore, utilizing the prior art, CISC systems have potential to perform better than RISC systems for complex instructions. Summary of the Invention In accordance with the preferred embodiment of the present invention, a method for efficient generation of compiled code is presented. The invention is defined in the claims. When translating complex operations from CISC system micro-code to RISC system instructions, in order to limit the amount of code required, microcode could be directly translated into RISC system instructions, and these RISC system instructions could be placed into run-time libraries which could be called any time the complex operation is to be executed. Such an implementation would keep the amount of in-line code to a minimum, however, this method of translation would not be optimal. One reason such a method would be suboptimal is because of the overhead necessary to access routines in the run-time library and to store and handle all the attendant state information. Another reason such a method would be suboptimal is because may types of complex operations spend a large amount of time calculating and interpreting information at run-time that is available to compilers at compile-time. Under a CISC system, this information is lost because a compiler cannot transmit such information to microcode at compile time, nor can a compiler alter system microcode to better suit a particular program. Because microcode program space is scare and expensive, there is typically only a single CISC instruction per class of complex operations. For example, a CISC system may have one string comparison instruction, one decimal addition,etc. The micro code programs associated with these instructions must therefore be capable of handling all situations and must typically make worst-case assumptions. A compiler may know, for example, that the source and target of a byte move do not overlap, but in a CISC system the microcode would have to determine this on its own at run-time. RISC machines can gain a significant performance advantage by utilizing all available information at compile time to generate highly efficient specifically tailored algorithms which perform complex operations. However, if every complex operation is separately generated and placed in code, significant expansion in the amount of lines of code may result. In the preferred embodiment of the present invention, in order to gain significant performance advantage with a minimum amount of code expansion, out-of-line code sequences are used. An out-of-line code sequence is a series of instructions that are invoked by a simplified calling mechanism in which almost no state-saving is required. Additionally, out-of-line code sequences is designed so that a single copy can exist on a system and all processes running on that system can access it. A series of out-of-line code sequences can be generated, each member of the series being tailored to a particular combination of compile-time information. This is unlike microcode where space restrictions may limit the number of microcode routines and which are unable to make assumptions based on information available at compile time. In the prior art, an article entitled "Compilers for the new generation of Hewlett-Packard Computers" by D.S. Coutant published in Hewlett-Packard Journal, vol. 37, No. 1, January 1986 at pages 4-18, describes an optimization technique for compilers. The technique analyses data flow and control flow. Interval analysis of "basic blocks" of the program is also performed, and code substitution is used during compilation to allow the compiled code to be adapted to the requirements of the processor on which the code is to run. In one example, in the absence of a hardware multiplication in a RISC processor, a choice is made between an inline code sequence for multiplication or an out-of-line millicode sequence. The millicode is chosen if neither multiplication operand is constant or if the inline code sequence would be too large. An article entitled "Predicting the effects of optimisation on a procedure body" by J.E. Ball published in Proceedings of the SIGPLAN SYMPOSIUM ON COMPILER CONSTRUCTION, Denver, 6th-10th August 1979, vol. 14, No. 8, at pages 214-220, discusses procedure integration (inline expansion) as a program transformation that replaces a call to a procedure by the body of that procedure. The article proposes a single data flow analysis of each procedure body and execution frequency analysis to determine the estimated execution speed benefit versus the code size cost of the procedure were to be integrated into each procedure call. An article entitled "An analysis of inline substitution for a structured programming language" by R.W. Scheifler published in Communications of the A.C.M., Vol. 20, No. 9, September 1977, at pages 647-654, discusses program optimization by replacing a procedure invocation by a modified copy of the procedure body. The article proposes an algorithm based on assumed size approximation of inline substitution of a procedure and run-time statistics. The latter is based on the assumptions that each procedure invocation requires a constant overhead, and that if a first procedure contains a call to another procedure, that call will be executed only once per invocation of the first procedure. Substitutions are based on a number-of-expected-invocations versus basic size change. It is preferred to expand frequently used small procedure than to expand a less frequently used larger procedure. However, none of the above articles proposes the different compilation techniques in the present invention depending on how much information about an operation to be compiled is available at the time of compilation. The Figure shows a flowchart which illustrates the method by which a compiler evaluates instructions in accordance with the preferred embodiment of the present invention. Description of the Preferred Embodiment . The Figure is a detailed flowchart which shows how an operation may be evaluated and code generated in accordance with the preferred embodiment of the present invention. Here follows Table 1 which is a key to the text within the flowchart shown in the Figure. TABLE 1 0. Set "z" equal to 1. Set "w" equal to 0. Set "u" equal to 0. 1. Is useful compile time information about the operation available? 2. Is the number of instructions required to perform the operation less than a defined factor which takes into account speed and space related factors? 3. Have the operation performed entirely in line. 4. Generate a call to a general purpose Millicode routine. 5. Is the operation fully described by compile-time information? 6. Is the number of instructions required to perform the operation less than a defined factor which takes into account speed and space related factors? 7. Have the operation performed in line using optimum custom code sequencing. 8. Separate the operation into repetitive and interpretive steps. Set "y" equal to the total number of steps. Assign each step a number from 1 to y. Set "x" equal to 1. 9. Is step x interpretive? 10. Have step x performed in line using optimum custom code sequencing. Set x equal to x + 1. 11. Generate a call to one of a set of highly specific repetitive Millicode routines. Set x equal to x + 1. 12. Is x greater than y? 13. Separate the operation into operational steps in which useful compile-time information is available and into operational steps in which useful compile-time information is not available. Set v equal to the total number of operational steps. Assign each operational step a number from x + 1 to w + v. Set w equal to w + v. Set z equal to z + v. 14. set z equal to z - 1. 15. Is z equal to 0? 16. Set u equal to u + 1. Set the operation equal to operational step u. Initialization is done in method step O. In method step 1, it is determined whether useful compile time information about the operation is available. If not, in method step 2, it is determined whether the number of instructions required to perform the operation is less than a defined factor which takes into account speed and space related factors? If it is less, in method step 3, the operation is coded entirely in line. If the number of instructions is not less, a call is generated to a general purpose out-of-line code sequence in method step 4. In method step 5 it is determined whether the operation is fully described by compile-time information. If so, in method step 6, it is determined whether the number of instructions required to perform the operation is less than a defined factor which takes into account speed and space related factors. If so, in method step 7, the operation is coded in line using optimum custom code sequencing. In method step 8 the operation is separated into repetitive and interpretive segments. In method steps 9, 10, 11 and 12, If a segment is interpretive, the segment is performed in line using optimum custom code sequencing; but if a segment is repetitive, a call is generated to one of a set of highly specific repetitive out-of-line code sequences. An operational step is considered repetitive if it can be performed in a fixed out-of line code sequence using approximately the same number of instructions as would be required for an "optimum" in-line code sequence. What is meant by "optimum" is having the minimum overhead possible. Also, in most RISC architecture computers, "number of instructions" is the same as "number of machine cycles"or "amount of time". Further, to be considered repetitive, an operational step must also occur frequently enough to justify it implementation as an out-of-line code sequence. An operational step is considered interpretive if it can be performed in far fewer number of instructions using an "optimum" in-line code sequence than would be required for an out-of-line sequence. If in method step 5, it is determined that the operation is not fully described by compile-time information, in method steps 13, 14, 15 and 16 the operation is separated into operational segments in which useful compile-time information is available and into operational segments in which useful compile-time information is not available. Each operational segment is then considered to be a complex operation and each operational segment is evaluated as a separate operation, starting at method step 1. A generalised code sequence which is an implemention of the flowchart shown in the Figure now follows as Table 2. For example, an operation may consist of an eight byte move followed by a 22-byte blank fill. This operation might commonly occur in the manipulation of character strings. Utilizing the method illustrated in Figure 1, in method steps 1 and 5, a compiler examining the eight byte move operation would determine that it is fully described by compile-time information. Then the compiler, in method steps 6 and 7, would find that the eight byte move operation may be done in few enough lines of code that the move operation made be written as code entirely in-line with no interpretive overhead. Next, the compiler would examine the 22-byte blank fill operation. The compiler, in method steps 1 and 5, would determine that the operation was fully described by compile-time information. However, in method step 6, the compiler would find that the amount of in-line instructions required to execute the operation would be excessive. In method step 8, the 22-byte blank fill would be broken into interpretive segments and repetitive segments. For instance, in a machine which operates on 32 bits at a time, i.e, operating on the basis of a 32 bit word, 22-bytes is essentially 4 words and two bytes. Therefore a 22-byte blank fill could be divided into five full word fills and two partial word fill. The five full word fills are considered repetitive segments and are performed in out-of-line code sequences. The partial word fill would require interpretation at run-time if it were performed in out-of-line code sequences, so it will be performed in-line instead. Tables 3, 4 and 5 show an example of code which is generated as a result of employing the preferred embodiment of the present invention. In the example given in Tables 3, 4 and 5, it is noteworthy that only four instruction are devoted to overhead. Specifically, this overhead includes only loading the address of the beginning of the fill, loading the fill character, branching to out-of-line code sequences, and returning from out-of-line code sequences. In a typical CISC system, much more time would be devoted to overhead. Table 3 COMPLETE MOVE/FILL CODE SEQUENCE soff => constant offset to start of source string. toff => constant offset to start of target. dp => register containing pointer to base of data region. blanks => register containing 0x20202020 (four blanks). MRP => register to hold an out-of-line code sequence return pointer. sr => number of space in which an out-of-line code sequence resides. In the attached Appendices are extracts from a code for a compiler which operates in accordance with the preferred embodiment of the present invention. The compiler uses information available at compile time to generate code sequences which are significantly more efficient than in the prior art. Appendix A.1 lists an extract from the compiler code which illustrates the implementation of inline and out-of-line code sequences. Appendix A.2 lists an extract from the compiler code which illustrates an alignment-type determination, and a move-length determination. The following are some of the operations within the code in which using the present invention results in more efficient code generation. The invention results in more efficient code generation when utilized with the following operations, which are more fully described in the code: byte moves, fills, string comparisons, decimal addition and subtraction, decimal comparison, decimal rounding, decimal multiplication and division. The preferred embodiment of the present invention describes an implementation of the present invention for a RISC machine; however, the advantages may also be gained by utilizing the invention in other than RISC machines.

Claims: A method, for use by a compiler program running on a computer, for efficient generation of compiled code, the method comprising the steps of: (a) providing out-of-line code sequences, a first portion of the out-of-line code sequences being general purpose out-of-line code sequences which completely perform operations, and a second portion of the out-of-line code sequences being specific purpose out-of-line code sequences each of which implements a segment of an operation, each of the implemented segments for use in the generation of code for more than one operation; (b) determining (at 1) by the compiler program whether at compile time there is available to the compiler program information about a first operation which information may be used to at least partially perform the first operation; (c) if information about the first operation which may be used to at least partially perform the first operation is not available to the compiler program, determining (at 2) by the compiler program whether code for the first operation can be generated using less than a predetermined number of instructions, and generating code (at 3) by the compiler program which when executed by a computer will perform the first operation in line if code for the first operation can be generated using less than the predetermined number of instructions, otherwise generating code (at 4) which calls a general purpose out-of-line code sequence which when executed will perform the first operation; and (d) if information about the first operation which may be used to at least partially perform the first operation is available to the compiler program and the compiler program determines (at 5) the first operation can be fully described by information available to the compiler program at compile time, generating code (at 11) by the compiler program which when executed will perform the first operation so that for every segment of the first operation which the compiler program determines is implemented by one of the specific purpose out-of-line code sequences a specific purpose out-of-line code sequence which implements the segment of the first operation is called and so that for every segment of the first operation which the compiler program determines is not implemented by one of the specific purpose out-of-line code sequences, code which implements the segment is placed in-line (at 10). A method as in claim 1 additionally comprising the step of: (e) if information about the first operation which may be used to at least partially perform the first operation is available to the compiler program but the operation cannot be fully described by the information, dividing (at 13, 14, 15, 16) by the compiler program the first operation into first operational segments of the first operation about which information which may be used to perform each first operational segment is available to the compiler program and into second operational segments of the first operation about which information which may be used to perform each second operational segment is not available to the compiler program, and for each first operational segment from the first operational segments and for each second operational segment from the second operational segments repeating steps (b) through (d) with an operational segment becoming the first operation.

Inventors: BUZBEE WILLIAM B, BUZBEE, WILLIAM B.
Applicants: HEWLETT PACKARD CO, HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY
Application year: 1987
Main classification: G06F9
IPC codes: G06F9