[llvm-dev] Invalid transformation in LibCallSimplifier::replacePowWithSqrt?

[Sanjay Patel via llvm-dev]

Understood, but I think an example that uses the result demonstrates the
problem more accurately:
https://godbolt.org/z/n4fGe4

And I'm not sure how to solve that other than my earlier suggestion to just
give up if the pow() call accesses memory (errno).

On Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 3:15 PM Hubert Tong <
hubert.reinterpretcast at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 3:00 PM Sanjay Patel <spatel at rotateright.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Sorry - I misread your example and the problem. I see now where
>> LibCallSimplifier creates the select...but we are immediately erasing that
>> select with the code from the godbolt example.
>> Does the real motivating case have no uses of the pow() result value?
>>
> Using the result value (assign to global volatile) doesn't cause the sqrt
> call to be avoided either.
>
>
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 1:03 PM Sanjay Patel <spatel at rotateright.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Yes, I mean just bail out on the transform in
>>> LibCallSimplifier::replacePowWithSqrt() -> getSqrtCall(). If we can't prove
>>> the call behaves the same with errno, then give up.
>>> I'm not sure where the select / branching happens, but I don't see that
>>> happening in the initial transform (called from -instcombine)
>>>
>>> On Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 12:58 PM Hubert Tong <
>>> hubert.reinterpretcast at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 12:45 PM Sanjay Patel <spatel at rotateright.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Yes, that looks like a bug. The transform is ok in general for
>>>>> negative numbers, but -Inf is a special-case for pow(), right?
>>>>> If so, we probably need an extra check of the input with
>>>>> "isKnownNeverInfinity()".
>>>>>
>>>> There is an extra check there already, but it uses "select" instead of
>>>> branching. One question is if branching is okay to use instead. Or perhaps
>>>> you mean the transform should not be done unless "isKnownNeverInfinity()"
>>>> returns true.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> If there are other errno divergences for edge case values, we may need
>>>>> to check other conditions.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, Sep 12, 2020 at 9:37 PM Hubert Tong via llvm-dev <
>>>>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The transformation in LibCallSimplifier::replacePowWithSqrt with
>>>>>> respect to -Inf uses a select instruction, which based on the observed
>>>>>> behaviour, incorporates the side effects of the unchosen branch. This means
>>>>>> that (for pow) a call to sqrt(-Inf) is materialized. Such a call is
>>>>>> specified as having a domain error (C17 subclause 7.12.7.5) since the
>>>>>> operand is less than zero. Contrast this with pow(-Inf, 0.5), which
>>>>>> is specified by C17 subclause F.10.4.4 as having a result of +Inf
>>>>>> (indicating an exact result for the operation and, since IEEE Std 754-2008
>>>>>> subclause 9.1.1 states that domain errors are to be indicated by a NaN
>>>>>> result, a lack of a domain error).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is noted that the above statements were made notwithstanding the
>>>>>> ERRORS section of pow() in POSIX.1-2017 XSH Chapter 3, which specifies a
>>>>>> domain error except perhaps by deference to the C standard due to a
>>>>>> conflict between the POSIX and the C wording.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The transformation in question causes EDOM for  pow(-Inf, 0.5) even
>>>>>> on platforms where the system library implementation of pow does not
>>>>>> cause this situation to arise.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A sample program that (on some platforms, such as Linux on x86-64)
>>>>>> completes successfully with optimizations off, and aborts with LLVM's
>>>>>> optimization follows; -fmath-errno does not help, and it is not
>>>>>> expected to, because it is designed to retain setting errno to non-zero
>>>>>> (not to prevent spuriously setting errno).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> #include <errno.h>
>>>>>> volatile double inf = -__builtin_inf();
>>>>>>
>>>>>> double pow(double, double);
>>>>>> void abort(void);
>>>>>> int main(void) {
>>>>>>   errno = 0;
>>>>>>   pow(inf, 0.5);
>>>>>>   if (errno != 0) abort();
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Compiler Explorer link: https://godbolt.org/z/5Wr66M
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is the transformation actually valid in some way? If not, I see no
>>>>>> instances where the LibCallSimplier generates conditional branches.
>>>>>> Retaining the transformation in some way without generating conditional
>>>>>> branches would probably involve bailing out if infinities are still in play.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>>>>>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
>>>>>> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>>>>>>
>>>>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20200914/bd0b9b10/attachment-0001.html>