[cfe-dev] [llvm-dev] Why is #pragma STDC FENV_ACCESS not supported?

Mon Jan 8 17:06:43 PST 2018

On 8 January 2018 at 11:15, Kaylor, Andrew via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:

> Hi Kevin,
>
> Thanks for reaching out about this, and thanks especially for offering to
> help. I've had some other priorities that have prevented me from making
> progress on this recently.
>
> As far as I know, there is no support at all in clang for handling the
> FENV_ACCESS pragma. I have a sample patch somewhere that I created to
> demonstrate how the front end would create the constrained intrinsics
> instead of normal FP operations, but correctly implementing support for the
> pragma requires more front end and language expertise than I possess. I
> believe Clark Nelson, who does have such expertise, has this on his long
> term TODO list but I don't know anything about the actual timeframe when
> the work will begin.
>

If you want to work on this side of things, the place to start would be
teaching the lexer to recognize the attribute and produce a suitable
annotation token, then teaching the parser to parse the token in the places
where the pragma can appear and to track the current FENV_ACCESS state.
Then you'll need to find a suitable AST representation for the pragma (I
have some ideas on this, feel free to ask), both for the affected compound
statements and for the affected floating-point operations, build those
representations when necessary, and teach the various AST consumers (LLVM
IR generation and constant expression evaluation immediately spring to
mind) how to handle them.

On the LLVM side of things there are a few significant holes. As you've
> noticed, the FP to integer conversions operations still need intrinsics, as
> do fcmp, fptrunc, and fpext. There are probably others that I'm
> overlooking. The FP to SI conversion has an additional wrinkle that needs
> to be worked out in that the default lowering of this conversion to machine
> instructions is not exception safe.
>
> In general, the current "strict FP" handling stops at instruction
> selection. At the MachineIR level we don't currently have a mechanism to
> prevent inappropriate optimizations based on floating point constraints, or
> indeed to convey such constraints to the backend. Implicit register use
> modeling may provide some restriction on some architectures, but this is
> definitely lacking for X86 targets. On the other hand, I'm not aware of any
> specific current problems, so in many cases we may "get lucky" and have the
> correct thing happen by chance. Obviously that's not a viable long term
> solution. I have a rough plan for adding improved register modeling to the
> X86 backend, which should take care of instruction scheduling issues, but
> we'd still need a mechanism to prevent constant folding optimizations and
> such.
>
> As for what you could begin work on, it should be a fairly
> straight-forward task to implement the intrinsics for fptosi, fptoui, fcmp,
> fptrunc, and fpext. That would be a gentle introduction. Beyond that, it
> would be very helpful to have some pathfinding work done to solidify
> exactly what the remaining shortcomings are. I have a patch somewhere
> (stale by now, but I could refresh it pretty easily) that unconditionally
> converts all FP operations to the equivalent constrained intrinsics. You
> could use that to do testing and find out what's broken.
>
> Thanks,
> Andy
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kevin P. Neal [mailto:kpn at neutralgood.org]
> Sent: Monday, January 08, 2018 6:41 AM
> To: Hal Finkel via cfe-dev <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org>
> Cc: Richard Smith <richard at metafoo.co.uk>; Kaylor, Andrew <
> andrew.kaylor at intel.com>; Marcus Johnson <bumblebritches57 at gmail.com>;
> wei.ding2 at amd.com; Bob Huemmer <bob.huemmer at sas.com>
> Subject: Re: [cfe-dev] Why is #pragma STDC FENV_ACCESS not supported?
>
> On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 05:03:17PM -0500, Hal Finkel via cfe-dev wrote:
> >    To be clear, we've had several extensive discussions about this, on
> and
> >    off list, and Andy has started adding the corresponding intrinsics
> into
> >    the IR. There was a presumption about a lack of mixing, however, and
> we
> >    do need to work out how to prevent mixing the native IR operations
> with
> >    the intrinsics (although, perhaps we just did that).
> >     -Hal
>
> What's the current status of this work? My employeer very much needs this
> work done sooner rather than later, and I've been tasked with helping make
> it happen.
>
> What, exactly, still needs to be done to complete this work? I've seen
> some of the discussions about it, and I've seen the documentation on the
> new llvm constrained floating point intrinsics. But clang I don't think
> supports them yet, fptosi is not on the list anyway, and I'm not sure what
> else is needed. So I'm asking, what all is needed and what can I work on to
> move this forward?
>
> Is there any work in progress code that anyone would be willing to share?
> For example, any code using the new intrinsics? Andy?
>
>
> The specific case we're running into today is that we have code being
> reordered in ways that trigger traps when handling a NaN. This code:
>
> #include <math.h>
>
> int foo(double d) {
>    int x = (!isnan(d) ? (int)d : 45);
>    return x;
> }
>
> ... becomes this:
>
> define signext i32 @foo(double) local_unnamed_addr #0 !dbg !10 {
>   tail call void @llvm.dbg.value(metadata double %0, i64 0, metadata !15,
> metadata !17), !dbg !18
>   %2 = tail call signext i32 @__isnan(double %0) #3, !dbg !19
>   %3 = icmp eq i32 %2, 0, !dbg !19
>   %4 = fptosi double %0 to i32, !dbg !20
>   %5 = select i1 %3, i32 %4, i32 45, !dbg !19
>   tail call void @llvm.dbg.value(metadata i32 %5, i64 0, metadata !16,
> metadata !17), !dbg !21
>   ret i32 %5, !dbg !22
> }
>
> So the fptosi gets moved _above_ the select and the trap happens. This in
> code that was written to avoid a trap in exactly this case.
>
> We're compiling with clang 5.0.0 "-g -O1" targeting SystemZ.
> --
> Kevin P. Neal                                http://www.pobox.com/~kpn/
>       'Concerns about "rights" and "ownership" of domains are
> inappropriate.
>  It is appropriate to be concerned about "responsibilities" and "service"
>  to the community.' -- RFC 1591, page 4: March 1994
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/attachments/20180108/165937dc/attachment.html>