Skip to content
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

Provide a way to const-initialize vendor-specific vector types #48745

Open
sfackler opened this issue Mar 5, 2018 · 8 comments
Open

Provide a way to const-initialize vendor-specific vector types #48745

sfackler opened this issue Mar 5, 2018 · 8 comments
Labels
A-const-eval Area: Constant evaluation, covers all const contexts (static, const fn, ...) A-SIMD Area: SIMD (Single Instruction Multiple Data) C-feature-request Category: A feature request, i.e: not implemented / a PR. T-lang Relevant to the language team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.

Comments

@sfackler
Copy link
Member

sfackler commented Mar 5, 2018

The platform independent simd types have constructors which are const fns, so they can be used in things like lookup tables: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/sfackler/stream-vbyte64/ea0d5b0afdf97f31473fafbf33d460fbbb313785/src/tables.rs.

However, the same is not the case for the vendor-specific types like __m256i. There are platform intrinsics which initialize those types (e.g. _mm256_setr_epi32 is equivalent to i32x8::new) but those are not const fns.

One way to work around this is by type-punning through unions:

#![feature(stdsimd)]

use std::arch::x86_64::*;

#[repr(C)]
union Pun {
    a: __m256i,
    b: [u32; 8],
}

static FOO: Pun = Pun { b: [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8] };

fn main() {
    let x = unsafe { _mm256_extract_epi32(FOO.a, 3) };
    println!("{}", x);
}

This kind of union is pretty common in SIMD-related C code I've seen, and I think well defined behavior from what the unions RFC describes. Is this the "right" way to do this? Can/should we make functions like _mm256_set_epi32 const?

cc @alexcrichton

@alexcrichton
Copy link
Member

cc @gnzlbg

@sfackler to confirm, is this something that's expected from C/C++? Or is this a "nice to have" in Rust?

@gnzlbg
Copy link
Contributor

gnzlbg commented Mar 5, 2018

The following should work in nightly as soon as rust-lang/stdarch#338 is merged:

const A: u32x8 = u32x8::new(1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8);
let b: __m256i = A.into_bits(); 

However, IIUC @sfackler correctly, the problem is that we can't make b const because into_bits is not a const fn. @sfackler did I understand you correctly?

If so, this has two causes:

  • mem::transmute is not a const fn
  • into_bits is a trait method

First, we need to be able to do transmutes in const fns somehow (*). The plan still is to have zero-cost bitwise conversions between vector types of the same size. That is, between architecture specific ones like __m256 and __m256i, between portable vector types like u32x8 and u64x4, and between portable vector types and architecture specific ones (e.g. _m256 and u32x8).

Currently, these conversions have zero runtime cost, but as @sfackler mentions, they have an usability cost if they aren't const fns. We should eliminate this cost.

Once we can perform const mem::transmutes, @sfackler could write:

const B: __m256i = mem::transmute(u32x8::new(1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8)); 

In the longer term I would prefer if the following would just work:

const B: __m256i = u32x8::new(1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8).into_bits(); 

But we would need const trait methods for this, or at least I don't see a way around that.


(*) EDIT: We could provide our own simd::transmute function that uses an union internally to perform const transmutes. . . like this:

#![feature(const_fn, untagged_unions, stdsimd)]
use std::arch::x86_64::*;
use std::simd::u32x8;

// Marker trait for safe bitwise conversions
pub unsafe trait SafeFromBits<Other> {}
unsafe impl SafeFromBits<u32x8> for __m256i {}

mod simd {
    #[allow(unions_with_drop_fields)]
    union U<A, B> {
        a: A,
        b: B,
    }
    pub const fn transmute<A, B: ::SafeFromBits<A>>(x: A) -> B {
        unsafe { U::<A, B> { a: x }.b }
    }
}

static FOO: __m256i = simd::transmute(u32x8::new(1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8));

fn main() {
    println!("{:?}", FOO);
}

Just because we can does not mean we should. I'd still prefer if into_bits() would just be const fn.

@TimNN TimNN added A-const-fn C-feature-request Category: A feature request, i.e: not implemented / a PR. A-SIMD Area: SIMD (Single Instruction Multiple Data) labels Mar 6, 2018
@oli-obk
Copy link
Contributor

oli-obk commented Apr 20, 2018

The transmute is trivial.

Trait methods are currently beyond the horizon (rust-lang/rfcs#2237 has been closed and is currently brainstormed out of band in https://github.com/Centril/rfc-effects)

@newpavlov
Copy link
Contributor

Why not make SIMD intrinsics const fns if it's applicable? IIUC _mm256_set_epi32 internally boils down to mem::transmute(i32x8::new(e0, e1, e2, e3, e4, e5, e6, e7)), so if we'll make core::mem::transmute const, or will use @gnzlbg's workaround (which can be left private) for the time being, then I think it should be relatively easy to pull off.

@gnzlbg
Copy link
Contributor

gnzlbg commented Oct 19, 2018

I don't see any reason against doing that, at least for the intrinsics that initialize vectors.

@newpavlov
Copy link
Contributor

newpavlov commented Oct 19, 2018

BTW it's already possible to use transmute as const fn.

That do you think about other "pure" intrinsics? It could be left for later, but I think we should consider making them constant as well in future.

@gnzlbg
Copy link
Contributor

gnzlbg commented Oct 19, 2018

That do you think about other "pure" intrinsics?

Many intrinsics are pure, but most of them call llvm intrinsics that cannot be called from const fn, so I don't know whether there is anything that can be done about these. In any case, I think its ok to decide here on a case-by-case basis. The vector constructors look like a good place to start.

@jonas-schievink jonas-schievink added the T-lang Relevant to the language team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. label Apr 20, 2020
@Nugine
Copy link
Contributor

Nugine commented Sep 25, 2022

transmute is const since 1.56. This issue seems to be solved now.

https://rust.godbolt.org/z/s7bEEj3W9

use std::arch::x86_64::*;
use std::mem::transmute;

pub const FOO: __m256i = unsafe { transmute([1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8]) };

#[target_feature(enable = "avx2")]
pub unsafe fn test() -> u32 {
    _mm256_extract_epi32(FOO, 3) as u32
}
example::test:
        mov     eax, 4
        ret

@RalfJung RalfJung added A-const-eval Area: Constant evaluation, covers all const contexts (static, const fn, ...) and removed A-const-fn labels Dec 1, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
A-const-eval Area: Constant evaluation, covers all const contexts (static, const fn, ...) A-SIMD Area: SIMD (Single Instruction Multiple Data) C-feature-request Category: A feature request, i.e: not implemented / a PR. T-lang Relevant to the language team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

9 participants