[llvm-dev] [cfe-dev] Do we need intrinsics for floating-point classification functions?

Wed Sep 22 10:04:43 PDT 2021

Yes, you should add intrinsics again.

I'm not sure "excluding the changes for fast-mode" is the right way to go
about it, however. I think Clang ought to generate llvm.isnan and friends
unconditionally in the frontend. The decision on how we want fast-math to
affect these intrinsics should be reflected in optimizations and
potentially which fast-math-flags Clang puts on the calls, not in whether
it emits the intrinsics or something else.

I believe it would be useful to split up the patches in a different way
than you submitted the first time. I'd suggest ordering it as:
1. Introduce the new intrinsics in LLVM IR (all of them, not just isnan).
2. Update optimizations, as necessary, to have the desired
transformations/analyses.
3. Switch Clang to generate the intrinsics (unconditionally).

On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 1:39 PM Serge Pavlov via cfe-dev <
cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> If nobody argues, in a couple of days I will put back the `llvm.isnan`
> implementation excluding the changes for fast-mode.
>
> Thanks,
> --Serge
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 3, 2021 at 1:46 PM Serge Pavlov <sepavloff at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Thank you for summarizing.
>>
>> I would prefer Option 2, a separate tool for separate tasks. It seems to
>> me that a specialized function is easier to implement than a universal one.
>> As implementation of llvm.isnan demonstrated, there may be various issues
>> in implementing such functions for different targets. It is easier to
>> provide optimized versions of small functions which are used more
>> frequently than `fpclassify`. Besides, `fpclassify` may be used itself and
>> a user may choose arbitrary constants, which complicates code generation.
>> It seems that it is more acceptable to tolerate some inefficiency in
>> `fpclassify` than in basic classification intrinsics. And yes, we should
>> consider `signbit` with them.
>>
>> Another consideration in favor of dedicated intrinsic rather than
>> ordinary function. Compiler may do some optimizations when it knows the
>> semantics of the function. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D104854 this
>> intrinsic was optimized out if its argument was  provided by an operation
>> with 'nnan' flag. We can also think about an optimization that determines
>> basic blocks guarded by `llvm.isnan` and assign flag 'nnan' in them. It
>> could make code faster in many practical cases, and make use of notorious
>> -ffast-math less attractive.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> --Serge
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 3, 2021 at 12:22 PM James Y Knight <jyknight at google.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> As you say, we don't strictly need a new intrinsic -- we can emit the
>>> code to do the correct integer-based bit-checking in the frontend -- as was
>>> done before. Yet, that is not ideal. The rationale to have an intrinsic
>>> instead of the frontend generating integer-bit-manipulation seem good, IMO.
>>>
>>> So the question that arises: *which* new intrinsic(s) do we want to
>>> add? I list 3 options below. I think Option 1 should be discarded from
>>> consideration, and I'm not sure which of 2 or 3 is best. I'm leaning
>>> towards 3 -- it seems like it may be simpler -- although I'm not certain.
>>>
>>> *Option 1*: we could theoretically address the problem with an
>>> llvm.experimental.constrained.superquiet_fcmp, which would be the same as
>>> fcmp, except it would not raise an fp exception even for an sNAN. This
>>> would be a straightforward substitution for fcmp in Clang's existing
>>> codegen, and it should work.
>>>
>>> However, I don't think this would be a good idea, because it's a poor
>>> match for hardware. The "superquiet_fcmp" operation doesn't map to CPU
>>> functionality in any ISA i'm aware of. Generally, the implementation would
>>> have to be to filter out sNANs prior to using the hardware fp-compare
>>> instruction. And how you you detect an sNAN without raising an fp
>>> exceptoin? Fall down to integer ops. But by doing that, you've done work
>>> almost equivalent to what you needed for the actual classification function
>>> that you were trying to implement in the first place. Not real useful.
>>>
>>> *Option 2*: We could add a whole family of classification intrinsics. I
>>> think that would be:
>>>
>>> llvm.isnan
>>> llvm.issignaling
>>> llvm.isinf
>>> llvm.isfinite
>>> llvm.isnormal
>>> llvm.issubnormal
>>> llvm.iszero
>>> (Note, some of these are missing corresponding __builtin_is* in Clang at
>>> the moment -- we have no __builtin_issignaling, __builtin_issubnormal, or
>>> __builtin_iszero. Probably ought to.)
>>>
>>> We don't necessarily need an intrinsic for fpclassify if we have the
>>> above intrinsics, since it can be built with llvm.isnan, llvm.isinf,
>>> llvm.iszero, and llvm.isnormal.
>>>
>>> *Option 3*: Add only an fpclassify intrinsic.
>>>
>>> That is, something like:
>>>    i32 llvm.fpclassify.i32.f32(i32 %if_snan, i32 %if_qnan, i32
>>> %if_infinite, i32 %if_normal, i32 %if_subnormal, i32 %if_zero, float %value)
>>> which classifies the given value, returning the value of the argument
>>> corresponding to its categorization. We can say the %if_* args are required
>>> to be constant integers, if we like, for simplicity of implementation.
>>>
>>> Thus, Clang would codegen __builtin_isnan/etc like:
>>>   %isnan = call i1 llvm.fpclassify.i1.f32(i1 1, i1 1, i1 0, i1 0, i1 0,
>>> i1 0, float %value)
>>> And for fpclassify, we might generate something like:
>>>   %ret = call i32 llvm.fpclassify.i32.f32(i32 0, i32 0, i32 1, i32 4,
>>> i32 3, i32 2, float %value)
>>>
>>> On most architectures, we'd expand this intrinsic into appropriate
>>> integer operations (skipping the parts of classification which are
>>> irrelevant for the given constant arguments), since there's no
>>> corresponding hardware instructions available for float classification.
>>> Or, for non-strictfp functions, we could continue to expand into an
>>> fcmp-based set of tests...although looking at the asm we currently
>>> generate, the integer versions may well be faster, other than isnan.
>>>
>>> On SystemZ/s390x, this intrinsic would translate almost directly into
>>> the "test data class" instruction -- so long as the %if_* arguments are all
>>> 0/1. That's kinda nice. ("Test data class" takes a fp value and a bitmask,
>>> and returns true if a bit is set in the position corresponding to the
>>> classification of the fp value.)
>>>
>>>
>>> *Separately*, we have the signbit operation. I think that's the only
>>> other operation that needs to be addressed related to this RFC. Currently,
>>> Clang always generates integer bit-ops for __builtin_signbit in the
>>> frontend. This is arguably OK as is. Yet, completing the set of IR fp
>>> classification intrinsics seems like it'd be a good idea. So, we could also
>>> (along with any of the above options) add:
>>>   i1 llvm.signbit.f32(float %value)
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Sep 2, 2021 at 8:33 AM Serge Pavlov via llvm-dev <
>>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> Some time ago a new intrinsic `llvm.isnan` was introduced, which was
>>>> intended to represent IEEE-754 operation `isNaN` as well as a family of C
>>>> library functions `isnan*`. Then a concern was raised (see
>>>> https://reviews.llvm.org/D104854) that this functionality should be
>>>> removed. Discussion in the subsequent RFC (
>>>> https://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2021-August/152257.html)
>>>> came to consensus that such intrinsic is necessary. Nevertheless the
>>>> patches related to the new intrinsic were reverted. I have to restart the
>>>> discussion in hope to convince the community that this intrinsic and other
>>>> classification functions are necessary.
>>>>
>>>> There are two main reasons why this intrinsic is necessary:
>>>> 1. It allows correct implementation of `isnan` if strict floating point
>>>> semantics is in effect,
>>>> 2. It allows preserving the check in -ffast-math compilation.
>>>>
>>>> To facilitate the discussion let's concentrate on the first problem.
>>>>
>>>> Previously the frontend intrinsic `__builtin_isnan` was converted into
>>>> `cmp uno` during IR generation in clang codegen. This solution is not
>>>> suitable if FP exceptions are not ignored, because compare instructions
>>>> raise exceptions if its argument is signaling NaN. Both IEEE-754 (5.7.2) an
>>>> C standard  (http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n2596.pdf,
>>>> F.3p6) demand that this function does not raise floating point exceptions.
>>>> There was no target-independent IR construct that could represent `isnan`.
>>>>
>>>> This drawback was significant enough and some attempts to alleviate it
>>>> were undertaken. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D95948 `isnan` was
>>>> implemented using integer operations in strictfp functions. It however is
>>>> not suitable for targets where a more efficient way exists, like dedicated
>>>> instruction. Another solution was implemented in
>>>> https://reviews.llvm.org/D96568, where a hook
>>>> `clang::TargetCodeGenInfo::testFPKind` was introduced, which injects target
>>>> specific code into IR. Such a solution makes IR more target-dependent and
>>>> prevents some IR-level optimizations.
>>>>
>>>> To have a solution suitable for all cases, a new intrinsic function
>>>> `llvm.isnan` was introduced (https://reviews.llvm.org/D104854). It
>>>> protects the check from undesirable optimizations and preserves it till
>>>> selector, where it can be lowered in optimal for a particular target way.
>>>>
>>>> Other classification functions also need their own intrinsics. In
>>>> strictfp mode even a check for zero (`iszero`) cannot be made by comparing
>>>> a value against zero, - if the value is signaling NaN, FP exceptions would
>>>> be raised. James Y Knight in the previous discussion (
>>>> https://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2021-August/152282.html)
>>>> listed such "non-computational" functions, which should not signal if
>>>> provided with an sNAN argument.
>>>>
>>>> It looks like new intrinsic is the only consistent and in
>>>> target-agnostic way to implement these checks in all environments including
>>>> the case when FP exceptions are not ignored.
>>>>
>>>> Any feedback is welcome.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
> 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/llvm-dev/attachments/20210922/fbacbffe/attachment.html>