[cfe-dev] [llvm-dev] Should isnan be optimized out in fast-math mode?

Thu Sep 9 09:52:43 PDT 2021

On Thu, Sep 9, 2021 at 11:29 PM Krzysztof Parzyszek <kparzysz at quicinc.com>
wrote:

> This goes back to what these options actually imply.  The interpretation
> that I favor is “this code will never see a NaN”, or “the program can
> assume that no floating point expression will evaluate to a NaN”.  The
> benefit of that is that it’s intuitively clear.  In that case “isnan(x)” is
> false, because x cannot be a NaN.  There is no distinction between
> “isnan(x+x)” and “isnan(x)”.  If the user wants to preserve “isnan(x)”,
> they can apply some pragma (which clang may actually have already).
>

It is apparent simplicity. As the discussion in gcc mail list demonstrated (
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-April/544641.html) this is
actually an impromissing way. From a practical viewpoint it is also a bad
solution as users cannot even check the assertions.

>
>
> To be honest, I’m not sure that I understand your argument.  Are you
> saying that under your interpretation we could optimize “isnan(x+x) ->
> false”, but not “isnan(x) -> false”?
>

Argument of `isnan(x+x)` is a result of arithmetic operation. According to
the meaning of -ffinite-math-only it cannot produce NaN. So this call can
be optimized out. In the general case `isnan(x)` value may be, say, loaded
from memory. Load is not an arithmetic operation, so nothing prevents from
loading NaN. Optimizing the call out is dangerous in this case.

>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Krzysztof Parzyszek  kparzysz at quicinc.com   AI tools development
>
>
>
> *From:* Serge Pavlov <sepavloff at gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Thursday, September 9, 2021 11:10 AM
> *To:* Krzysztof Parzyszek <kparzysz at quicinc.com>
> *Cc:* Chris Lattner <clattner at nondot.org>; James Y Knight <
> jyknight at google.com>; LLVM Developers <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>;
> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
> *Subject:* Re: [cfe-dev] [llvm-dev] Should isnan be optimized out in
> fast-math mode?
>
>
>
> *WARNING:* This email originated from outside of Qualcomm. Please be wary
> of any links or attachments, and do not enable macros.
>
> On Thu, Sep 9, 2021 at 8:30 PM Krzysztof Parzyszek via cfe-dev <
> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
> If we say that the fast-math flags are “enabling optimizations that the
> presence of nans otherwise prohibits”, then there is no reason for clang to
> keep calls to “isnan” around, or to keep checks like “fpclassify(x) ==
> it’s_a_nan” unfolded.  These are exactly the types of optimizations that
> the presence of NaNs would prohibit.
>
>
>
> Transformation 'x * 0 -> 0' is an optimization allowed in the absence of
> nans as arguments, because it produces a program that behaves identically
> under the given restrictions. Replacement of `isnan(x + x)` is also an
> optimization under the same restrictions. Replacement of `isnan(x)` in
> general case is not, because we cannot assume that x cannot be a NaN.
>
>
>
>
>
> I understand the need for having some NaN-handling preserved in an
> otherwise finite-math code.  We already have fast-math-related attributes
> attached to each function in the LLVM IR, so we could introduce a
> source-level attribute for enabling/disabling these flags per function.
>
>
>
> GCC allows using `#pragma GCC optimize ("finite-math-only")` or `#pragma
> GCC optimize ("no-finite-math-only")` to enable/disable optimization per
> function basis. Clang could support this pragmf or maybe `#pragma clang fp`
> can be extended to support similar functionality.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Krzysztof Parzyszek  kparzysz at quicinc.com   AI tools development
>
>
>
> *From:* cfe-dev <cfe-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org> *On Behalf Of *Chris
> Lattner via cfe-dev
> *Sent:* Wednesday, September 8, 2021 5:51 PM
> *To:* James Y Knight <jyknight at google.com>
> *Cc:* LLVM Developers <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>; Clang Dev <
> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [cfe-dev] [llvm-dev] Should isnan be optimized out in
> fast-math mode?
>
>
>
> *WARNING:* This email originated from outside of Qualcomm. Please be wary
> of any links or attachments, and do not enable macros.
>
> On Sep 8, 2021, at 3:27 PM, James Y Knight via llvm-dev <
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> I expressed my strong support for this on the previous thread, but I'll
> just repost the most important piece...
>
>
>
> I believe the proposed semantics from the Clang level ought to be:
>
>   The -ffinite-math-only and -fno-signed-zeros options do not impact the
> ability to accurately load, store, copy, or pass or return such values from
> general function calls. They also do not impact any of the
> "non-computational" and "quiet-computational" IEEE-754 operations, which
> includes classification functions (fpclassify, signbit, isinf/isnan/etc),
> sign-modification (copysign, fabs, and negation `-(x)`), as well as
> the totalorder and totalordermag functions. Those correctly handle NaN,
> Inf, and signed zeros even when the flags are in effect. These flags *do* affect
> the behavior of other expressions and math standard-library calls, as well
> as comparison operations.
>
>
>
> FWIW, I completely agree - these flags are about enabling optimizations
> that the presence of nans otherwise prohibits.  We shouldn’t take a literal
> interpretation of an old GCC manual, as that would not be useful.
>
>
>
> If we converge on this definition, I think it should be documented.  This
> is a source of confusion that comes up periodically.
>
>
>
> -Chris
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I would not expect this to have an actual negative impact on the
> performance benefit of those flags, since the optimization benefits mainly
> arise from comparisons and the general computation instructions which are
> unchanged.
>
>
>
> In further support of this position, I note that the previous thread
> uncovered at least one vendor -- Apple (
> https://opensource.apple.com/source/Libm/Libm-2026/Source/Intel/math.h.auto.html)
> -- going out of their way to cause isnan and friends to function properly
> with -ffast-math enabled.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 8, 2021 at 1:02 PM Serge Pavlov via cfe-dev <
> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
>
>
> One of the purposes of `llvm::isnan` was to help preserve the check made
> by `isnan` if fast-math mode is
>
> specified (https://reviews.llvm.org/D104854). I'd like to describe reason
> for that and propose to use the behavior
>
> implemented in that patch.
>
>
>
> The option `-ffast-math` is often used when performance is important, as
> it allows a compiler to generate faster code.
>
> This option itself is a collection of different optimization techniques,
> each having its own option. For this topic only the
>
> option `-ffinite-math-only` is of interest. With it the compiler treats
> floating point numbers as mathematical real numbers,
>
> so transformations like `0 * x -> 0` become valid.
>
>
>
> In clang documentation (
> https://clang.llvm.org/docs/UsersManual.html#cmdoption-ffast-math) this
> option is described as:
>
>     "Allow floating-point optimizations that assume arguments and results
> are not NaNs or +-Inf."
>
> GCC documentation (
> https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Optimize-Options.html) is a bit more
> concrete:
>
>     "Allow optimizations for floating-point arithmetic that assume that
> arguments and results are not NaNs or +-Infs."
>
>
>
> **What is the issue?**
>
> C standard defines a macro `isnan`, which can be mapped to an intrinsic
> function provided by the compiler. For both
>
> clang and gcc it is `__builtin_isnan`. How should this function behave if
> `-ffinite-math-only` is specified? Should it make a
>
> real check or the compiler can assume that it always returns false?
>
> GCC optimizes out `isnan`. It follows from the viewpoint that (
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50724#c1):
>
>     "With -ffinite-math-only you are telling that there are no NaNs and
> thus GCC optimizes isnan (x) to 0."
>
>
>
> Such treatment of `-ffinite-math-only` has sufficient drawbacks. In
> particular it makes it impossible to check validity of
>
> data: a user cannot write
>
>
>
> assert(!isnan(x));
>
>
>
> because the compiler replaces the actual function call with its expected
> value. There are many complaints in GCC bug
>
> tracker (for instance https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84949
> or https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50724)
>
> as well as in forums (
> https://stackoverflow.com/questions/47703436/isnan-does-not-work-correctly-with-ofast-flags
> or
>
> https://stackoverflow.com/questions/22931147/stdisinf-does-not-work-with-ffast-math-how-to-check-for-infinity).
> Proposed
>
> solutions are using integer operations to make the check, to turn off
> `-ffinite-math-only` in some parts of the code or to
>
> ensure that libc function is called. It clearly demonstrates that `isnan`
> in this case is useless, but users need its functionality
>
> and do not have a proper tool to make required checks. The similar
> direction was criticized in llvm as well (
> https://reviews.llvm.org/D18513#387418).
>
>
>
> **Why imposing restrictions on floating types is bad?**
>
> If `-ffinite-math-only` modifies properties of `double` type, several
> issues arise, for instance:
> - What should return `std::numeric_limits<double>::has_quiet_NaN()`?
> - What body should have this function if it is used in a program where
> some functions are compiled with `fast-math` and some without?
> - Should inlining of a function compiled with `fast-math` to a function
> compiled without it be prohibited in inliner?
> - Should `std::isnan(std::numeric_limits<float>::quiet_NaN())` be true?
>
> If the type `double` cannot have NaN value, it means that `double` and
> `double` under `-ffinite-math-only` are different types
>
> (https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-April/544641.html). Such
> a way can solve these problems but it is so expensive
>
> that hardly it has a chance to be realized.
>
>
>
> **The solution**
>
> Instead of modifying properties of floating point types, the effect of
> `-ffinite-math-only` can be expressed as a restriction on
>
> operation usage.  Actually clang and gcc documentation already follows
> this way. Fast-math flags in llvm IR also are attributes
>
> of instructions. The only question is whether `isnan` and similar
> functions are floating-point arithmetic.
>
> From a practical viewpoint, treating non-computational functions as
> arithmetic does not add any advantage. If a code extensively
>
> uses `isnan` (so could profit by their removal), it is likely it is not
> suitable for -ffinite-math-only. This interpretation however creates
>
> the problems described above. So it is profitable to consider `isnan` and
> similar functions as non-arithmetical.
>
>
>
> **Why is it safe to leave `isnan`?**
>
> The probable concern of this solution is deviation from gcc behavior.
> There are several reasons why this is not an issue.
>
> 1. -ffinite-math-only is an optimization option. A correct program
> compiled with -ffinite-math-only and without it should behave
>
>    identically, if conditions for using -ffinite-math-only are fulfilled.
> So making the check cannot break functionality.
> 2. `isnan` is implemented by libc, which can map it to a compiler builtin
> or use its own implementation, depending on
>
>    configuration options. `isnan` implemented in libc obviously always
> does the real check.
> 3. ICC and MSVC preserve `isnan` in fast-math mode.
>
>
>
> The proposal is to not consider `isnan` and other such functions as
> arithmetic operations and do not optimize them out
>
> just because -ffinite-math-only is specified. Of course, there are cases
> when `isnan` may be optimized out, for instance,
>
> `isnan(a + b)` may be optimized if -ffinite-math-only is in effect due to
> the assumption (result of arithmetic operation is not NaN).
>
> What are your opinions?
>
> Thanks,
> --Serge
>
> _______________________________________________
> cfe-dev mailing list
> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cfe-dev mailing list
> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/attachments/20210909/f7f758c7/attachment-0001.html>