[cfe-dev] [llvm-dev] Intrinsic llvm::isnan
Kevin Neal via cfe-dev
cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
Tue Aug 24 05:26:02 PDT 2021
It probably doesn’t help that IEEE 754-2019 uses the word “signal” to mean, paraphrased, “set a bit in a status register and continue producing a result with no trap”, and that’s in the default FP environment. So IEEE “signaling” is not Unix “signaling”.
Once one picks up on that distinction the IEEE 754 document reads a lot like Andy’s description of x86-64 behavior.
From: Kaylor, Andrew <andrew.kaylor at intel.com>
Sent: Monday, August 23, 2021 6:31 PM
To: Arthur O'Dwyer <arthur.j.odwyer at gmail.com>; Sanjay Patel <spatel at rotateright.com>
Cc: Kevin Neal <Kevin.Neal at sas.com>; Wang, Pengfei <pengfei.wang at intel.com>; llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org; Clang Dev <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org>
Subject: RE: [cfe-dev] [llvm-dev] Intrinsic llvm::isnan
I think the confusion here has to do with what it means for the optimizer to assume that “floating-point exceptions will be masked”. What I’m about to say may be specific to the x86-64-based processor behavior because that’s the one I know, but I think other architectures will have similar behavior but possibly with different terms?
If a floating point exception occurs in an operation and that exception is masked in the floating point control registers, the status bit for that exception will be set and nothing else will happen. If a floating point exception occurs in an operation and that exception is NOT masked in the floating point control registers, an exception handler will be called.
So, what the current documentation means to say is that the optimizer may assume that the status flags will not be read and that no exception handler will be called if a floating point exception occurs. Basically, it means that floating point exceptions will be ignored in all ways.
> It's still not clear to me if there's a benefit from having an intrinsic vs. one more exception mode ("none" or "off").
The key point to recognize here is that the metadata arguments to the constrained intrinsics are intended to describe assumptions that can or cannot be made. They are not intended to bring about the state that they describe. So, for example, if the rounding mode argument is set to “fpround.tonearest” that means the optimizer can assume that the processor is set to use the “tonearest” rounding mode, but it does not enforce this. If we see this flag during ISel, we can select an instruction that takes an explicit rounding mode argument and use the “tonearest” value for that argument, but we are also allowed to select an instruction that uses the rounding mode from the MXCSR register and assume that when this instruction is executed that rounding mode will be “tonearest”.
If you need an intrinsic that is guaranteed not to raise exceptions, that should be a distinct intrinsic from any similar intrinsic that may raise exceptions. See, for example, llvm.experimental.constrained.nearbyint and llvm.experimental.constrained.rint which differ only in exception behavior.
From: Arthur O'Dwyer <arthur.j.odwyer at gmail.com<mailto:arthur.j.odwyer at gmail.com>>
Sent: Monday, August 23, 2021 2:37 PM
To: Sanjay Patel <spatel at rotateright.com<mailto:spatel at rotateright.com>>
Cc: Kaylor, Andrew <andrew.kaylor at intel.com<mailto:andrew.kaylor at intel.com>>; Kevin Neal <Kevin.Neal at sas.com<mailto:Kevin.Neal at sas.com>>; Wang, Pengfei <pengfei.wang at intel.com<mailto:pengfei.wang at intel.com>>; llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org<mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>; Clang Dev <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org<mailto:cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org>>
Subject: Re: [cfe-dev] [llvm-dev] Intrinsic llvm::isnan
On Mon, Aug 23, 2021 at 3:42 PM Sanjay Patel via cfe-dev <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org<mailto:cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote:
Ok, does this edit to the LangRef make sense for the definition of "ignore":
"optimization passes may assume that the exception status flags will not be read and that floating-point exceptions **will** be masked" -->
"optimization passes may assume that the exception status flags will not be read and that floating-point exceptions **may** be masked"
I haven't been following the technical details, but in terms of the English documentation, it makes no sense to say that someone "may assume that [X] may happen." Either [X] always happens, in which case optimization passes may safely assume that it happens; or [X] never happens, in which case optimization passes may safely assume that it does not happen; or else [X] sometimes happens and sometimes doesn't, in which case optimizations passes must not assume anything about [X].
So you might say: "optimization passes may assume that the exception status flags will not be read. Floating-point exceptions might or might not be masked, depending on [____]" (and then mention the relevant variable, such as "instruction set" or "optimization level" or whatever).
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the cfe-dev