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

[Serge Pavlov via cfe-dev]

`isnan` does not begin with an underscore, so it is not a reserved
identifier. Why is its redefinition an UB?

Thanks,
--Serge


On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 9:03 PM Krzysztof Parzyszek <kparzysz at quicinc.com>
wrote:

> If the compiler provides “isnan”, the user can’t redefine it.
> Redefining/undefining any function or a macro provided by a compiler is UB.
>
>
>
> The “old” behavior can be tuned with #pragmas to restore the functionality
> of NaNs where needed.
>
> The “old” behavior doesn’t have a problem with “has_nan”---it returns
> “true”.  What other issues are there?
>
>
>
> --
>
> Krzysztof Parzyszek  kparzysz at quicinc.com   AI tools development
>
>
>
> *From:* cfe-dev <cfe-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org> *On Behalf Of *Serge
> Pavlov via cfe-dev
> *Sent:* Monday, September 13, 2021 8:50 AM
> *To:* James Y Knight <jyknight at google.com>
> *Cc:* llvm-dev <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.
>
> Let's weigh the alternatives.
>
> We are discussing two approaches for handling `isnan` and similar
> functions in -ffinite-math-only mode:
> 1. "Old" behavior: "with -ffinite-math-only you are telling that there are
> no NaNs", so `isnan` may be optimized to `false`.
> 2. "New" behavior: with -ffinite-math-only you are telling that the
> operands of arithmetic operations are not NaNs but otherwise NaN may be
> used. As `isnan` is not an arithmetic operation, it should be preserved.
>
> Advantages of the "old" behavior are:
> - " it’s intuitively clear".
> - It is close to the GCC current behavior.
>
> Advantages of the "new" behavior are:
> - `isnan` is still available to the user, which allows, for instance,
> validation of working data or selection between fast and slow path.
> - NaN is available and may be used, for instance, as sentinel.
> - Consistency between compiler and library implementations, both would
> behave similarly.
> - In most real cases the "old" behavior can be easily obtained by
> redefinition of `isnan`.
> - It is free from issues like "what returns
> numeric_limits<float>::has_quite_NaN()?".
>
> It is unlikely that "old" behavior gives noticeable performance gain.
> Anyway, `isnan` may be redefined to `false` if it actually does.
>
> Intuitive clarity of the "old" way is questionable for users, because it
> is not clear why functions like `isnan` silently disappeared or what body
> should have specializations of `numeric_limit` methods.
>
> There are cases when checking for NaN is needed even in -ffinite-math-only
> mode. To make it, users have to use workarounds like doing integer
> arithmetic on float values, which reduce clarity of code, make it
> unportable and slower.
>
> Are there any other advantages/disadvantages of these approaches?
>
>
>
> Thanks,
> --Serge
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 7:00 PM James Y Knight <jyknight at google.com>
> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Sep 13, 2021, 2:02 AM Serge Pavlov via cfe-dev <
> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
> The working construct is `reinterpret_cast<uint32_t&>(x)`. It however
> possesses the same drawback, it requires `x` be in memory.
>
>
>
> We're getting rather far afield of the thread topic here, but .. that is
> UB, don't do that.
>
>
>
> Instead, always memcpy, e.g.
>
> uint32_t y;
>
> memcpy(&y, &flo, sizeof(uint32_t));
>
>
>
> Or use a wrapper like std::bit_cast or absl::bit_cast (
> https://github.com/abseil/abseil-cpp/blob/cfbf5bf948a2656bda7ddab59d3bcb29595c144c/absl/base/casts.h#L106
> ).
>
>
>
> This has effectively no runtime overhead, the compiler is extremely good
> at deleting calls to memcpy when it has a constant smallish size. And
> remember that *every* local variable started out in memory. Only through
> optimizations does the memory location and the loads/stores for every
> access get eliminated.
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/attachments/20210913/01d3cae5/attachment-0001.html>