[LLVMdev] Representing -ffast-math at the IR level

Tue Apr 17 09:59:39 PDT 2012

On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 17:52:30 +0200
Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr> wrote:

> Hi Kevin,
> 
> >  1. Most compiler and back-end control of floating point behavior
> > appears to be motivated by controlling the loss or gain of a few
> > low bits of precision on a whole module scale. In fact, these
> > concerns are usually insignificant for programmers of
> > floating-point intensive applications. The input to most floating
> > point computations have far lower significance than the
> > computations themselves, and therefore they have precision to burn.
> > So the vast majority of such app developers would happily trade
> > precision for performance, even as the default behavior. However,
> > the place where trouble DOES occur is with overflow and underflow
> > behavior at critical points. Changing the order of operations, or
> > combining operations, can cause overflows or underflows to occur
> > that wouldn’t otherwise occur, and vice versa.
> 
> for the moment I'm distinguishing (mentally) between transformations
> that introduce a uniformly bounded relative error, for example x+0 ->
> x, or x/constant -> x * (1/constant) if constant and 1/constant are
> normal (and not denormal), and those that can introduce an unbounded
> relative error. Reassociation is an example of a transformation that
> can introduce unbounded relative error, for example (1 + epsilon) - 1
> -> 0 if epsilon is small enough, while (1 - 1) + epsilon -> epsilon.
> I'm basically assuming that everyone is happy with the transforms
> that introduce a bounded relative error - it sounds to me like this
> is the distinction that you are making too.  Transforms that
> introduce unbounded relative error (like reassocation) are a can of
> worms, and I'm not sure how best to handle them.  So for the moment
> I'm not planning to handle them, just gather ideas and discuss.

I agree, these two things are quite different. For the constant
relative error class, yes, we should do them if at all possible. For
the others, we may want to only do these if we have some additional
information available (input ranges, for example). As far as this goes,
I would suggest trying to get advice from "the experts" (there are a
number of relevant projects at INRIA (Gappa, flocq, etc.), so perhaps
pinging someone from there would be helpful).

 -Hal

> 
>   Sometimes this is beneficial, but it is almost always unexpected.
> >     Underflows may sound less important in this regard, but they
> > can be worse than overflows, because they can mostly or completely
> > eliminate the significant bits, in complete silence, leaving the
> > entire computation worthless. Much of numerical analysis,
> > especially in writing floating point library functions, concerns
> > the precise control of overflow and loss of significance in
> > specific operations. To the extent that optimizations which make
> > such control difficult or impossible, can render the use of a
> > compiler or backend unusable for that purpose. 2. While the use of
> > metadata for control of LLVM behavior is attractive for its
> > simplicity and power, the philosophy that it can be safely ignored
> > or even removed in some optimization passes would seem to doom its
> > effectiveness for controlling floating point optimizations. For
> > anyone trying to use source language and compiler option mechanisms
> > to control for fp overflow and underflow, this approach would seem
> > ill conceived.
> 
> I think there may be a misunderstanding here.  True, the design of
> metadata is that it is not wrong to drop it.  However the compiler
> isn't trying to drop it, it tries hard not to drop it: any cases of
> pointlessly dropped metadata are a bug.  In this fpmath metadata is
> analogous to tbaa (type based alias analysis metadata): if it is
> dropped you get conservatively correct results, but some
> optimizations are missed.  Compiler writers don't like missing
> optimizations! If you see any cases of fpmath metadata being dropped
> then please report it.
> 
>   For the purpose of
> >     providing a Front-End developer with a powerful platform for
> > supporting fp-intensive programming,
> 
> Let me just say up front that it is not clear to me that this is a
> goal of LLVM.
> 
>   the primary requirement is that the Front-end
> >     should be able to precisely control optimizations that can
> > change the fp intermediate results under all optimization levels
> > for each individual fp operation specified in the IR. The vast
> > majority of such usage can and should chosen to default to high
> > performance behavior. But it should be possible for the front-end
> > to precisely control IR re-ordering, operation combining (including
> > exploitation of mul-add hardware support), and reactions to
> > overflow and underflow conditions (using the exception handling
> > conditions and underlying the hardware support). By providing this
> > power in the IR, it allows a Front-end developer to reliably
> > support source language mechanisms (e.g. use of parentheses) and
> > front-end recognized compiler options (e.g. for fp exception
> > handling) to respond to the needs of the source language programmer
> > for fp-intensive applications.
> 
> Given that LLVM doesn't even properly support rounding modes, I think
> you are going to have to wait a few years at least before we are
> anywhere near something like this.  That said, we'd get there sooner
> (assuming we actually want to go there) if you help - patches welcome!
> 
> > It should be possible to define one or more attribute flags for FP
> > operations in the IR with semantics that guarantee allowance or
> > suppression of optimizations that might create or eliminate
> > overflow, underflow, or significant precision loss. The
> > implementation of such semantics in the existing optimization
> > passes might take a fair amount of work, I admit. But that is
> > exactly what Front-End developers and their source language
> > programmers would most benefit from.
> 
> I'm pretty sure that building lots of flags into floating point
> operations is not going to fly at this stage.  Metadata allows us to
> grow lots of flags if we want without much impact on the compiler.
> Once the metadata approach has matured and shown its usefulness or
> limitations then we can consider baking things into the IR or other
> such approaches.  But that's a long way off.
> 
> Ciao, Duncan.
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev

-- 
Hal Finkel
Postdoctoral Appointee
Leadership Computing Facility
Argonne National Laboratory