[PATCH] The LoopVectorizer and libm sqrt

[Tobias Grosser]

On 09/12/2013 09:52 PM, Hal Finkel wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
>> On 09/12/2013 09:34 PM, Hal Finkel wrote:
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>> I did not write this code but I assume this was done on purpose
>>>>> because our llvm.sqrt intrinsics has a slightly different
>>>>> semantics:
>>>>>
>>>>> The ‘llvm.sqrt‘ intrinsics return the sqrt of the specified
>>>>> operand,
>>>>> returning the same value as the libm ‘sqrt‘ functions would.
>>>>> Unlike
>>>>> sqrt in libm, however, llvm.sqrt has undefined behavior for
>>>>> negative
>>>>> numbers other than -0.0 (which allows for better optimization,
>>>>> because there is no need to worry about errno being set).
>>>>> llvm.sqrt(-0.0) is defined to return -0.0 like IEEE sort.
>>>>
>>>> Hrmm... okay; I'll send a revised patch where we explicitly check
>>>> for
>>>> fast-math mode.
>>>
>>> Or perhaps not; the TargetOptions are not available at the IR-level
>>> right now, and so this seems to leave us with two options:
>>>
>>>    1. Feed something through TTI
>>>
>>>    2. Have Clang generate the intrinsic directly in fast-math mode
>>>
>>> I'm leaning toward (1), because I'd like to give the target the
>>> ability to declare the availability of a vectorized sqrt that is
>>> suitable as a libm sqrt replacement.
>>>
>>> What do you think?
>>
>> It seems only 2) would allow to mix fast-math and non-fast-math
>> modes,
>> which in fact my be very helpful in case of LTO and/or math libraries
>> that provide fast as well as precise versions of a function.
>
> I don't think that's right. For one thing, the 'fast math' flags are now stored in function-level attributes (specifically for this reason).

Are you saying the function-level attributes will influence the TTI? 
Will it be changed on a per-function basis?

Also, function level fast math flags seem to cause similar problems as 
soon as we start inlining, no?

Tobi