Abe Skolnik via llvm-dev
2016-Oct-12 16:00 UTC
[llvm-dev] Matthias` suggestion for "test-suite" tests that are broken at "-Ofast" and are difficult to "repair"
On 10/11/2016 at 4:15 PM, Matthias Braun wrote:> I don't find it surprising that some applications do not work properly with -ffast-math and I think we > have to accept that fact. I think it is valid to skip those tests in the test-suite when a fast math > flag combination is used (after making sure there is no easy way to make the test more robust).> I would add a "TEST_SUITE_FAST_MATH" variable in the cmake build (possibly scanning CFLAGS for -ffast-math/-Ofast > to determine the default value) and then adding if(NOT TEST_SUITE_FAST_MATH) ... endif()around the benchmark. I accept Matthias` proposal, and I propose that the above be used for wherever "really fixing" the FP problems with a test is beyond a reasonable effort+time level. This email is to check acceptance [or lack thereof] of the above. Regards, Abe
Hal Finkel via llvm-dev
2016-Oct-12 16:09 UTC
[llvm-dev] Matthias` suggestion for "test-suite" tests that are broken at "-Ofast" and are difficult to "repair"
----- Original Message -----> From: "Abe Skolnik" <a.skolnik at samsung.com> > To: "Matthias Braun" <mbraun at apple.com> > Cc: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov>, "Renato Golin" <renato.golin at linaro.org>, "llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> > Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2016 11:00:39 AM > Subject: Matthias` suggestion for "test-suite" tests that are broken at "-Ofast" and are difficult to "repair" > > On 10/11/2016 at 4:15 PM, Matthias Braun wrote: > > > I don't find it surprising that some applications do not work > > properly with -ffast-math and I think we > > have to accept that fact. I think it is valid to skip those tests > > in the test-suite when a fast math > > flag combination is used (after making sure there is no easy way to > > make the test more robust). > > > I would add a "TEST_SUITE_FAST_MATH" variable in the cmake build > > (possibly scanning CFLAGS for -ffast-math/-Ofast > > to determine the default value) and then adding if(NOT > > TEST_SUITE_FAST_MATH) ... endif() > around the benchmark. > > > > I accept Matthias` proposal, and I propose that the above be used for > wherever "really fixing" > the FP problems with a test is beyond a reasonable effort+time level. > This email is to check > acceptance [or lack thereof] of the above.This makes sense to me. I think we should set this up so that the tests are enabled by default, and then we specifically disable those tests for which we've determined that is the best practical solution. -Hal> > Regards, > > Abe >-- Hal Finkel Lead, Compiler Technology and Programming Languages Leadership Computing Facility Argonne National Laboratory
Renato Golin via llvm-dev
2016-Oct-12 17:22 UTC
[llvm-dev] Matthias` suggestion for "test-suite" tests that are broken at "-Ofast" and are difficult to "repair"
On 12 October 2016 at 17:09, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote:>> I accept Matthias` proposal, and I propose that the above be used for >> wherever "really fixing" >> the FP problems with a test is beyond a reasonable effort+time level. >> This email is to check >> acceptance [or lack thereof] of the above. > > This makes sense to me. I think we should set this up so that the tests are enabled by default, and then we specifically disable those tests for which we've determined that is the best practical solution.With -ffast-math, all bets are off, and it makes no sense to check against good values, I agree. But the benchmarking mode could be run with -ffast-math, and you'd still want to make sure it works to some level. I mean, we run SPEC with -ffast-math and it's not that bad, so it should be doable. But from a test point of view, what sense does it make to run with -ffast-math if you'll discard all "problematic" FP tests? Why run the tests at all in that config if they're not meaningful? I'm not against marking them off for fast-math, I'm just honestly trying to understand what the point of it is... simply put: "what is the meaning of saying all integer and some non-previously-failing FP tests `pass` with -ffast-math"? cheers, --renato
Apparently Analagous Threads
- Matthias` suggestion for "test-suite" tests that are broken at "-Ofast" and are difficult to "repair"
- [test-suite] making polybench/symm succeed with "-Ofast" and "-ffp-contract=on"
- [test-suite] making polybench/symm succeed with "-Ofast" and "-ffp-contract=on"
- [test-suite] making polybench/symm succeed with "-Ofast" and "-ffp-contract=on"
- [test-suite] making the test-suite succeed with "-Ofast" and "-ffp-contract=on"