Cranelift: ISLE: aarch64: `imm12_from_negated_value` rules don't apply for i32, i16

[Alexa VanHattum]

Our prototype verifier seems to have found a completeness/performance (not correctness) bug in the handling of some narrow immediate values in aarch64.

aarch64 has the following rules that check if the negated value of a constant fits in an immediate (Imm12), doing a corresponding switch between add and subtract:

;; Same as the previous special case, except we can switch the subtraction to an
;; addition if the negated immediate fits in 12 bits.
(rule 2 (lower (has_type (fits_in_64 ty) (isub x (imm12_from_negated_value y))))
      (add_imm ty x y)) 
      
;; Same as the previous special cases, except we can switch the addition to a
;; subtraction if the negated immediate fits in 12 bits.
(rule 2 (lower (has_type (fits_in_64 ty) (iadd x (imm12_from_negated_value y))))
      (sub_imm ty x y))

(rule 3 (lower (has_type (fits_in_64 ty) (iadd (imm12_from_negated_value x) y)))
      (sub_imm ty y x))

These rules should work for all fits_in_64 types (i8, i16, i32, i64), but they seem to only work as intended for i64 (they aren't stricly needed for i8, since the versions of these rules without negation trigger there since i8 values always fit in Imm12).

In particular, our prototype verifier found that for i16 and i32, these rules only apply if the operand extracted with imm12_from_negated_value is exactly 0, rather than values in the range Cranelift lowers to Imm12: constants with negated values val: (val < 0xfff) || (val < 0xfff_000 && (val & 0xfff == 0)).

For example, adding a constant -1 to a value should always be able to be lowered to subtracting an immediate 1 from the value, but as shown in the test cases below, clif only uses sub for i8 and i64 in this case and otherwise keeps a mov and add.

What I think is the bug

As discussed in #5700, Clif semantics are that narrow (i8, i64, i32) iconst are stored in an underlying u64 that is zero-extended, not sign-extended, from the narrow bits.

imm12_from_negated_value negates this zero-extended value as an i64 then checks whether that fits into an immediate:

fn imm12_from_negated_u64(&mut self, n: u64) -> Option<Imm12> {
    Imm12::maybe_from_u64((n as i64).wrapping_neg() as u64)
}

Any narrow negative constant, after being zero extended, has left-filled zeros, so negating the value no longer produces a constant that is unsigned < 0xfff or < 0xfff_000.

When handling narrow iconst values, imm12_from_negated_value should negate the narrow value then zero extend in this case. In general, ISLE terms operating on the u64 may need to see the u32, u16, etc, instead. I'll work on a PR for at least fixing imm12_from_negated_value.

.clif Test Case

imm12-64.clif

test interpret
test run
target aarch64

function %a(i64) -> i64 {
block0(v0: i64):
    v1 = iconst.i64 -1
    v3 = iadd v0, v1
    return v3
}
; run: %a(0) == -1

Because the .clif parser currently sign-extends instead of zero-extends values, for narrow constants I use the decimal -1 value as an unsigned u64 to construct the iconst:

imm12-32.clif

test interpret
test run
target aarch64

function %a(i32) -> i32 {
block0(v0: i32):
    v1 = iconst.i32 4294967295
    v3 = iadd v0, v1
    return v3
}
; run: %a(0) == -1

Steps to Reproduce

cargo run -- compile --target aarch64 -D imm12-64.clif
cargo run -- compile --target aarch64 -D imm12-32.clif
cargo run -- compile --target aarch64 -D imm12-16.clif
cargo run -- compile --target aarch64 -D imm12-8.clif

Expected Results

This function gets rewritten to:

sub     x0, x0, #1
ret

in all cases.

Actual Results

cargo run -- compile --target aarch64 -D imm12-64.clif
.byte 0, 4, 0, 209, 192, 3, 95, 214

Disassembly of 8 bytes:
   0:   00 04 00 d1             sub     x0, x0, #1         <-- good use of immediate
   4:   c0 03 5f d6             ret
   
cargo run -- compile --target aarch64 -D imm12-32.clif
.byte 2, 0, 128, 18, 0, 0, 2, 11, 192, 3, 95, 214

Disassembly of 12 bytes:
   0:   02 00 80 12             mov     w2, #-1
   4:   00 00 02 0b             add     w0, w0, w2         <-- no immediate
   8:   c0 03 5f d6             ret

cargo run -- compile --target aarch64 -D imm12-16.clif
.byte 226, 255, 159, 82, 0, 0, 2, 11, 192, 3, 95, 214

Disassembly of 12 bytes:
   0:   e2 ff 9f 52             mov     w2, #0xffff
   4:   00 00 02 0b             add     w0, w0, w2         <-- no immediate
   8:   c0 03 5f d6             ret
cargo run -- compile --target aarch64 -D imm12-8.clif
.byte 0, 252, 3, 17, 192, 3, 95, 214

Disassembly of 8 bytes:
   0:   00 fc 03 11             add     w0, w0, #0xff      <-- good use of immediate because #0xff is small
   4:   c0 03 5f d6             ret

Versions and Environment

Cranelift version or commit: c4a2c1e

Operating system: macOS

Architecture: aarch64

[Jamey Sharp]

I agree that this is a bug and I think you've diagnosed the root cause correctly. Thanks for the example inputs, which illustrate the bug very clearly! These would make great precise-output filetests in cranelift/filetests/filetests/isa/aarch64/, if you'd like to open a PR for that: we'd test for the current sub-optimal behavior for now, and then when this is fixed we'll see the tests "fail", highlighting that the fix worked.

I guess imm12_from_negated_value should be a partial constructor, not an extractor, so it can use i64_sextend_imm64 and pass the value's type through. If we add an i64_neg constructor to the prelude, then I think we can get rid of imm12_from_negated_u64 and write this instead:

(decl partial imm12_from_negated_value (Value) Imm12)
(rule
  (imm12_from_negated_value (has_type ty (iconst n)))
  (if-let (imm12_from_u64 imm) (i64_as_u64 (i64_neg (i64_sextend_imm64 ty n))))
  imm)

I think we also need to implement #3059 so we can have some confidence that we're treating high bits consistently everywhere.

If anyone wants to pick this up I'm happy to discuss in more detail how to fix it!

[Alexa VanHattum]

I'll open a PR for adding these as file tests, and try out the change @jameysharp suggested to use i64_sextend_imm64.

@jameysharp, do you think that the change to the rule shouldn't land until #3059 changes? Or just that this is more motivation to address #3059?

[Jamey Sharp]

I had to think about that question, but my conclusion is that this is only more motivation to address #3059 and maybe find more cases like this. Since the i64_sextend_imm64 constructor entirely ignores the upper bits, if we start using that in these rules then these rules won't care whether the CLIF verifier checks this property or not.