llvm dev - Nov 2016 - RFC: Consider changing the semantics of 'fast' flag implying all fast-math-flags

On the plus side, I'm glad to see the conclusions of the last couple of
posts.

From Mehdi:
> Hope this clarify where I see the direction going, and even if you don’t
agree with my
> reasoning, the conclusion should be satisfactory on your side :)
I'd say that summarizes my thoughts on this well.

And from Nicolai:
> Right. I'm not fundamentally opposed to having these flags, ...
I do agree with much of what you both say, but definitely not all of it.  The
philosophy of not providing what a customer requests and instead guiding them to
a better alternative is something I agree with -- we don't just give them a
pony.  And I agree *strongly* that just because a program gets the answer a user
wants with GCC (using fast-math) and we get an answer they view as
"wrong", doesn't mean it's a bug of ours and that we need to
change to get the same answer as GCC.  That's not what our goal of GCC
compatibility means to me.

But we do have a switch '-fno-reciprocal-math' that we accept, and even
process/implement to some extent.  But that implementation has a bug.  Fixing
that bug so that when a user says '-ffast-math -fno-reciprocal-math', we
enable the fast-math transformations but explicitly disable the reciprocal
transformations is, in my view, the right thing to do.  Simply, that is a bug
that we ought to fix -- unless we agree to abandon support of
'-fno-reciprocal-math', which I think isn't under consideration at
this stage.  And FTR, I'd oppose that, not surprisingly. :)

I'm not at all trying to justify the "pony" use-case from this
customer, but if we provide '-fno-reciprocal-math', I think we ought to
fix bugs we find in our implementation of it.  Fixing that bug doesn't
guarantee we'll then get the same answers as GCC does on every program when
compiled with '-ffast-math -fno-reciprocal-math', but IMO that isn't
required for us to describe our behavior as "GCC compatibility" in
this respect.

Fast-math is "unusual", in that the user is explicitly opening the
door to allowing us to do non-compliant transformations.  As compared with GCC,
our implementation can have a subset or a superset of these non-compliant
transformations, and we can still call that "GCC compatibility".  As
an analogous "not unusual" feature, both we and GCC do type based
alias analysis.  It's a perfectly standard-compliant thing to do
optimizations based on conclusions from the tbaa.  We both support the switch
'-f[no-]strict-aliasing' to control this (and we both enable it by
default).  Referring to this as "GCC compatibility" is perfectly
legitimate, in my view.  But if a user program has an aliasing bug in it, and
our tbaa directs us to aggressively optimize it, whereas GCC's doesn't
(and so the user gets the answer they wanted with GCC, but not with us), this
does not mean we have a bug, or that saying we're GCC compatible in terms of
'-f[no-]strict-aliasing' is a "lie".  We can do a superset or
subset of the optimizations that GCC does in terms of alias analysis, and we can
quite reasonably describe us a GCC compatible in terms of us providing this
capability.  A user insisting we have a bug in this tbaa situation is analogous
to your "pony" request about "float test_div(float a, float b) {
return a/b; }".  And (unrelated to Clang/LLVM) I've had this sort of
objection from users in tbaa situations in the past, where I've had to
defend my point that just because GCC didn't optimize it as aggressively as
the compiler I was providing, it wasn't a bug in our compiler.  So I'm
all for not giving everyone a pony.

But irrespective of how silly a test-case it may be to do:

    {
      float x = a / c;
      float y = b / c;
 
      if (y == 1.0f) {
        // do some processing for when 'b' and 'c' are equal
      } else {
        // do other processing
      }
 
      use(x, y);
    }

I cannot in good conscience tell the customer that it's OK for us to do:

      float tmp = 1.0f / c;
      float x = a * tmp;
      float y = b * tmp;

when they specified '-ffast-math -fno-reciprocal-math'.  They can
rightfully come back and say "what do you mean by
'-fno-reciprocal-math'?"  I have to call that a compiler-bug.

Thanks!
-Warren

-----Original Message-----
From: Nicolai Hähnle [mailto:nhaehnle at gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2016 12:36 PM
To: Kaylor, Andrew <andrew.kaylor at intel.com>; Ristow, Warren
<warren.ristow at sony.com>; mehdi.amini at apple.com
Cc: llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] RFC: Consider changing the semantics of 'fast'
flag implying all fast-math-flags

On 17.11.2016 19:54, Kaylor, Andrew wrote:
>>All that said, I think we (the company I work for, Sony) will have to 
>>implement support for these switches.  It comes down to GCC has these 
>>switches (e.g., -fno-reciprocal-math and -fno-associative-math), and
they do suppress the transformations for our customers.
>>They switch to Clang/LLVM, they use the same switches, and it
doesn't
>>"work".  So as a practical matter, I think we will support
them.
>>Whether the LLVM community in general feels that that's required, is
>>another question.  Until for your recent comments here, and
Nicolai's
>>comments above, I would have thought the answer was clearly yes.  But
maybe that's not the case.
>
> I think this is a very good point.  You (Sony) are not the only ones 
> who are concerned with GCC-command line compatibility.  It definitely 
> should hold some weight.  Given that this is something we could do 
> with just a little more effort, I’m not sure mere simplicity is enough 
> reason not to do it.
Right. I'm not fundamentally opposed to having these flags, as long as we
can agree that the *only* reason for having them is slightly better GCC
compatibility. The "slightly better" is important, too, because
promising real compatibility with any kind of fast math-type setting would
simply be a lie.

So (to answer Mehdi's question in a different part of the thread), I'd
consider keeping arcp around a wart, but an acceptable one. I'm fine
with: IR 'fast' becomes IR 'reassociation' (or similar;
algebraically correct transforms that may change rounding), and reciprocal math
becomes "this thing that should logically be enabled by
'reassociation', but instead requires 'arcp' for
GCC-'compatibility' reasons".

And to be clear, 'reassociation' should _not_ by itself allow transforms
like X * (Y + 1) --> X * Y + X which can change the NaN-ness of the result
when Infs are among the arguments. That's what 'reassociation' +
'ninf' is for.

> Also, on a slight tangent...
>
>
>
>>> I'd be really curious to know if there is anybody who really
needs
>>> arcp without fp-contract=fast or vice versa, or who needs both of 
>>> these but not the X*log2(0.5*Y) transform you mentioned, and so 
>>> on.[1]
>
> I just wanted to mention that fp-contract relates to things like FMA 
> and shouldn’t be confused with fast-math.
It's conceptually the same type of thing though, isn't it? At least
fp-contract=fast, which means "use FMA even when it changes floating point
results (due to different rounding)". This is kind of like the
'fast' flag, which means "do all sorts of transformations even when
they change floating point results (due to different rounding)". I
don't know whether clang -ffast-math enables fp-contract=fast, but I'd
say that in a clean, from-scratch design, fp-contract=fast shouldn't be a
separate flag.

Cheers,
Nicolai

>
>
>
> -Andy
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:*Ristow, Warren [mailto:warren.ristow at sony.com]
> *Sent:* Thursday, November 17, 2016 12:51 AM
> *To:* mehdi.amini at apple.com
> *Cc:* Kaylor, Andrew <andrew.kaylor at intel.com>; 
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org; Nicolai Hähnle <nhaehnle at gmail.com>
> *Subject:* RE: [llvm-dev] RFC: Consider changing the semantics of
'fast'
> flag implying all fast-math-flags
>
>
>
> Those are all good points.  Your reassociation point in the context of 
> inlining is particularly interesting.
>
>
>
> FWIW, we also have a case where a customer wants
'-fno-associative-math'
> to suppress reassociation under '-ffastmath'.  It would take me a 
> while to find the specifics of the issue, but it was (if my memory is 
> right) more of a real use-case.  (That is to say, the code that was
"failing"
> due to reassociation didn't have an obvious fix like the reciprocal 
> situation, here, other than to turn off fast-math.)  In fact, the 
> request to suppress reassociation was the motivation for creating
> PR27372 in the first place (which eventually fed into this thread).  I 
> have to say that on the reassociation point, my concern is that to 
> really suppress that, we will have to suppress so much, that there 
> will hardly be any point in using -ffast-math.
>
>
>
> I'd say your comments here are very similar to what Nicolai said in 
> another subthread of this discussion:
>
>
>
>>> I'd be really curious to know if there is anybody who really
needs
>>> arcp
>
>>> without fp-contract=fast or vice versa, or who needs both of these 
>>> but
>
>>> not the X*log2(0.5*Y) transform you mentioned, and so on.[1]
>
>>> ...
>
>>> [1] One case I _can_ think of (and which may have been a reason for
>>> the
>
>>> proliferation of flags in the first place) is somebody who enables 
>>> fast
>
>>> math, but then doesn't want their results to change when they
update
>>> the
>
>>> compiler and get a new set of optimizations. But IMO that's a
use
>>> case
>
>>> that should be explicitly rejected.
>
>
>
> I think those are all really good points, and an argument can be made 
> that when -ffast-math gives you results you don't want, then you just 
> have to turn it off.  Essentially, the user can't "have his cake
and
> eat it too".
>
>
>
> All that said, I think we (the company I work for, Sony) will have to 
> implement support for these switches.  It comes down to GCC has these 
> switches (e.g., -fno-reciprocal-math and -fno-associative-math), and 
> they do suppress the transformations for our customers.  They switch 
> to Clang/LLVM, they use the same switches, and it doesn't
"work".  So
> as a practical matter, I think we will support them.  Whether the LLVM 
> community in general feels that that's required, is another question.
> Until for your recent comments here, and Nicolai's comments above, I 
> would have thought the answer was clearly yes.  But maybe that's not 
> the case.
>
>
>
> In summary, irrespective of any (subjective?) assessment of how 
> legitimate a particular use-case is, do we want switches like:
>
>
>
>     -ffast-math -fno-reciprocal-math
>
>      -ffast-math -fno-associative-math
>
>
>
> to work?
>
>
>
> For me, the answer is yes, because I have multiple customers that tell 
> me they really want to leave -ffast-math on, but they want to be able 
> to disable these sub-categories.  I've been approaching this under the 
> assumption that the answer is yes for the Clang/LLVM community in general.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> -Warren
>
>
>
> *From:*mehdi.amini at apple.com <mailto:mehdi.amini at apple.com> 
> [mailto:mehdi.amini at apple.com]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, November 16, 2016 10:46 PM
> *To:* Ristow, Warren <warren.ristow at sony.com 
> <mailto:warren.ristow at sony.com>>
> *Cc:* Kaylor, Andrew <andrew.kaylor at intel.com 
> <mailto:andrew.kaylor at intel.com>>; llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org 
> <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>; Nicolai Hähnle <nhaehnle at
gmail.com
> <mailto:nhaehnle at gmail.com>>
> *Subject:* Re: [llvm-dev] RFC: Consider changing the semantics of
'fast'
> flag implying all fast-math-flags
>
>
>
>
>
>     On Nov 16, 2016, at 10:04 PM, Ristow, Warren <warren.ristow at
sony.com
>     <mailto:warren.ristow at sony.com>> wrote:
>
>
>
>     > Can you elaborate what kind of runtime failure is the reciprocal
>     transformation triggering?
>
>
>
>     Yes.  It was along the lines of:
>
>
>
>         {
>
>           float x = a / c;
>
>           float y = b / c;
>
>
>
>           if (y == 1.0f) {
>
>             // do some processing for when 'b' and 'c' are
equal
>
>           } else {
>
>             // do other processing
>
>           }
>
>
>
>           use(x, y);
>
>         }
>
>
>
>     Of course they understood they could easily change this code once
>     they understood the issue.
>
>
>
>     But the fact that it "failed" for non-edge-case values of
'c', they
>     were worried.  As an example of the non-edge-case aspect, when
'c'
>     is 41.0f (and so of course 'b' is 41.0f), intuitively they felt
that
>     this “would work precisely”, even with fast-math.  Once they
>     understood more, they agreed this was reasonable with fast-math, but
>     they had the underlying concern that if they encountered one case
>     where 'num' and 'den' were equal (and non-edge-case),
yet 'num /
>     den' wasn't precisely 1.0f, then even if they fixed this
situation
>     where they encountered it, it might be lurking elsewhere in their
>     code, and so they wanted to disable that transformation.
>
>
>
> Thanks for elaborating.
>
>
>
> I’d be reluctant to call this situation a real use-case though.
>
> Is the the distinction on reciprocal really make sense here? This user 
> can have the same “surprising" anywhere in their code-base with 
> reassociation as well:
>
>
>
> void foo (float a, float b) {
>
>   float x = a - b;
>
>   if (x == 0)
>
>      … // only if a == b
>
> }
>
>
>
> That would sound totally reasonable, unless foo is inlined and 
> reassociation would lead to a non-zero value for x even when a and b 
> passed in to foo "if it wasn’t inlined" would be identical!
>
>
>
> (Reminds me somehow of a client that was bitten by nnan: their 
> assumption was that as long as they didn’t introduce NaN in the 
> program everything was fine. However with fast-math some 
> transformations were introducing NaN where there wasn’t before and 
> propagating to other computation that were transformed under the 
> assumption that no NaN would show up, it also turns out that making 
> the code safe against NaN and efficient at the same time is hard, 
> especially when the code itself it compiled with fast-math).
>
>
>
> —
>
> Mehdi
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>     *From:* mehdi.amini at apple.com <mailto:mehdi.amini at
apple.com>
>     [mailto:mehdi.amini at apple.com]
>     *Sent:* Wednesday, November 16, 2016 7:11 PM
>     *To:* Ristow, Warren <warren.ristow at sony.com
>     <mailto:warren.ristow at sony.com>>
>     *Cc:* Kaylor, Andrew <andrew.kaylor at intel.com
>     <mailto:andrew.kaylor at intel.com>>; llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org
>     <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>; Nicolai Hähnle <nhaehnle
at gmail.com
>     <mailto:nhaehnle at gmail.com>>
>     *Subject:* Re: [llvm-dev] RFC: Consider changing the semantics of
>     'fast' flag implying all fast-math-flags
>
>
>
>
>
>         On Nov 16, 2016, at 6:22 PM, Ristow, Warren
>         <warren.ristow at sony.com <mailto:warren.ristow at
sony.com>> wrote:
>
>
>
>         > ... except that Warren’s proposal that started this 
> discussion seems to imply that he
>
>         > has a use case that requires reciprocals to be turned off
separately.
>
>
>
>         Just to close this loose end, yes I have a use case.
>
>
>
>         Specifically, we have a customer that turns on
'‑ffast‑math',
>         but was getting a runtime failure due to the
>         reciprocal-transformation being done.
>
>
>
>     Can you elaborate what kind of runtime failure is the reciprocal
>     transformation triggering?
>
>
>
>     —
>
>     Mehdi
>
>
>
>
>
>         They don't want turn off fast‑math because they like the
>         performance improvement, and can live with the imprecision in
>         most cases.  So they wanted to suppress just the
>         reciprocal-transformation.  I intended to tell them the solution
>         was simple: use '‑ffast‑math ‑fno‑reciprocal‑math'.  But on
>         trying it myself, I ran into the issue here.
>
>
>
>         Thanks,
>
>         -Warren
>
>
>
>         *From:* Kaylor, Andrew [mailto:andrew.kaylor at intel.com]
>         *Sent:* Wednesday, November 16, 2016 4:13 PM
>         *To:* Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com
>         <mailto:mehdi.amini at apple.com>>; Ristow, Warren
>         <warren.ristow at sony.com
>         <mailto:warren.ristow at sony.com>>; llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org
>         <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>; Nicolai Hähnle
>         <nhaehnle at gmail.com <mailto:nhaehnle at gmail.com>>
>         *Subject:* RE: [llvm-dev] RFC: Consider changing the semantics
>         of 'fast' flag implying all fast-math-flags
>
>
>
>         I don’t really like the idea of updating checks of
>         UnsafeAlgebra() to depend on all of the other flags.  It seems
>         like it would be preferable to look at each optimization and
>         figure out which flags it actually requires.  I suspect that in
>         many cases the “new” flag (i.e. allowing reassociation, etc.)
>         will be what is actually needed anyway.
>
>
>
>         I would be inclined to agree with Niolai’s suggestion of
>         combining all the flags related to value safety, except that
>         Warren’s proposal that started this discussion seems to imply
>         that he has a use case that requires reciprocals to be turned
>         off separately.
>
>
>
>         -Andy
>
>
>
>         *From:* llvm-dev [mailto:llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org] *On
>         Behalf Of *Mehdi Amini via llvm-dev
>         *Sent:* Wednesday, November 16, 2016 8:55 AM
>         *To:* Ristow, Warren <warren.ristow at sony.com
>         <mailto:warren.ristow at sony.com>>
>         *Cc:* llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org>
>         *Subject:* Re: [llvm-dev] RFC: Consider changing the semantics
>         of 'fast' flag implying all fast-math-flags
>
>
>
>
>
>             On Nov 15, 2016, at 11:59 PM, Ristow, Warren
>             <warren.ristow at sony.com <mailto:warren.ristow at
sony.com>> wrote:
>
>
>
>             Hi,
>
>
>
>             Thanks for the quick feedback.  I see your points, but I
>             have a few questions/comments.  I'll start at the end of
the
>             previous post:
>
>
>
>             > ...
>
>             > I think these are valuable problems to solve, but you
should tackle them piece by piece:
>
>             >
>
>             > 1) the clang part of overriding the individual FMF and
emitting the right IR is the first thing to fix.
>
>             > 2) the backend is still using the global UnsafeFPMath and
it should be killed.
>
>
>
>             I addressed this point (2) for the reciprocal aspect in the
>             patch, but of course that wasn't useful without doing
>             something about (1).
>
>
>
>             Regarding (1), over
>             at https://reviews.llvm.org/D26708#596610, David made the
>             same point that it should be done in Clang.  I can
>             understand that, but I wonder whether having the concept of
>             the 'fast' flag in the IR that implies all the other
FMF
>             makes sense?  I'm not seeing a good reason for it, but
since
>             this is very new to me, I can easily imagine I'm missing
the
>             big picture.
>
>
>
>             For example, in the LLVM IR
>             (http://llvm.org/docs/LangRef.html#fast-math-flags) the
>             fast-math flags 'nnan', 'ninf', 'nsz',
'arcp' and 'fast’ are
>             defined.  Except for 'fast', each of these has a fairly
>             specific definition of what they mean.  For example, for
'arcp':
>
>
>
>                 arcp => "Allow optimizations to use the reciprocal
of an
>             argument rather
>
>                          than perform division."
>
>
>
>             'fast' is unusual, in that it describes a fairly
generic set
>             of aggressive floating-point optimizations:
>
>
>
>                 fast => "Allow algebraically equivalent
transformations
>             that may dramatically
>
>                         change results in floating point (e.g.
>             reassociate). This flag implies
>
>                         all the others."
>
>
>
>             Very loosely, 'fast' means "all the aggressive
>             FP-transformations that are not controlled by one of the
>             other 4, plus it implies all the other 4".  If for
>             terminology, we call those additional aggressive
>             optimizations 'aggr', then we have:
>
>
>
>                 'fast' == 'aggr' + 'nnan' +
'ninf' + 'nsz' + 'arcp'
>
>
>
>             So as I see it, if we want to disable only one of the other
>             ones (like 'arcp', in my case), there isn't any way
to
>             express that with these IR flags defined this way.  In
>             short, we cannot turn on all the flags besides 'arcp'. 
To
>             do that, what we want is that somehow for the Clang switches:
>
>
>
>               '-ffast-math -fno-reciprocal-math'
>
>
>
>             to ultimately result in LLVM IR that has the following flags
>             on in appropriate FP ops:
>
>
>
>               'aggr' + 'nnan' + 'ninf' + ‘nsz'
>
>
>
>         Make sense, I missed that we can’t *subtract* from fast at the
>         IR level.
>
>
>
>         I wouldn’t be opposed to have something along the line of
>         “aggr”, but there is a tradeoff: some transformation may be
>         harder to guard with this model.
>
>
>
>         Maybe that could be a starting point: changing the
>         “UnsafeAlgebra” bit in the FMF to be “aggr” you mention and
>         replace all the query to FastMathFlags::UnsafeAlgebra() to
>         return true if all the bits are set in the Flags. This alone
>         should be nothing more than a mechanical change I believe.
>
>         The important part is then auditing all the users of
>         UnsafeAlgebra() in the middle end and check if they can be
>         “downgraded” to aggr safely: i.e. if they don’t need aggr *and*
>         another flag.
>
>
>
>         —
>
>         Mehdi
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>             But I don't see a way to express 'aggr' in the IR. 
We could
>             do this, if we change the definition of the IR 'fast'
flag
>             to remove that sentence about implying all the others:
>
>
>
>                 fast => "Allow algebraically equivalent
transformations
>             that may dramatically
>
>                         change results in floating point (e.g.
reassociate).
>
>
>
>             (If we do something like that, we may want to change the
>             name from 'fast' to something else (like
'aggr'), to avoid
>             tying it too closely to the concept of the
'-ffast-math'
>             switch.)
>
>
>
>             As an aside, I don't know if the "reassociate"
example is
>             the only other transformation that's allowed by
'fast' (I
>             presume it isn't), but I think reassociation would be
better
>             expressed by a separate flag, which could then be controlled
>             independently via '-f[no]-associative-math' switch. 
Not
>             having that flag exist separately in the FMF is the origin
>             of PR27372.  But creating that flag and using it in the
>             appropriate places would still run into these problems of
>             'fast' implying all the others, which would make it
>             impossible to disable reassociation while leaving all the
>             other FMF transformations enabled.
>
>
>
>             To ask a concrete question using the current definition of
>             'fast' (which includes enabling reassociation, as the
LLVM
>             IR documentation of FMF says), how can we express in the IR
>             that reciprocal-transformations are not allowed, but
>             reassociation is allowed?
>
>
>
>             So the bottom line is that I do see there are issues in
>             Clang that are relevant.  But as long as 'fast' means
>             "'aggr' plus all the other FMF
transformations", I don't see
>             how we can effectively disable a subset of those other FMF
>             transformations (while leaving 'aggr' transformations,
such
>             as reassociation, enabled).  With that in mind, my patch
>             took one step in having 'fast' no longer imply all the
others.
>
>
>
>             Thanks,
>
>             -Warren
>
>
>

> On Nov 17, 2016, at 1:24 PM, Ristow, Warren <warren.ristow at
sony.com> wrote:
> 
> On the plus side, I'm glad to see the conclusions of the last couple of
posts.
> 
> From Mehdi:
> 
>> Hope this clarify where I see the direction going, and even if you
don’t agree with my
>> reasoning, the conclusion should be satisfactory on your side :)
> 
> I'd say that summarizes my thoughts on this well.
> 
> And from Nicolai:
> 
>> Right. I'm not fundamentally opposed to having these flags, ...
> 
> I do agree with much of what you both say, but definitely not all of it. 
The philosophy of not providing what a customer requests and instead guiding
them to a better alternative is something I agree with -- we don't just give
them a pony.  And I agree *strongly* that just because a program gets the answer
a user wants with GCC (using fast-math) and we get an answer they view as
"wrong", doesn't mean it's a bug of ours and that we need to
change to get the same answer as GCC.  That's not what our goal of GCC
compatibility means to me.
> 
> But we do have a switch '-fno-reciprocal-math' that we accept, and
even process/implement to some extent.  But that implementation has a bug. 
Fixing that bug so that when a user says '-ffast-math
-fno-reciprocal-math', we enable the fast-math transformations but
explicitly disable the reciprocal transformations is, in my view, the right
thing to do.  Simply, that is a bug that we ought to fix -- unless we agree to
abandon support of '-fno-reciprocal-math', which I think isn't under
consideration at this stage.  And FTR, I'd oppose that, not surprisingly. :)

> 
> I'm not at all trying to justify the "pony" use-case from
this customer, but if we provide '-fno-reciprocal-math', I think we
ought to fix bugs we find in our implementation of it.  Fixing that bug
doesn't guarantee we'll then get the same answers as GCC does on every
program when compiled with '-ffast-math -fno-reciprocal-math', but IMO
that isn't required for us to describe our behavior as "GCC
compatibility" in this respect.
> 
> Fast-math is "unusual", in that the user is explicitly opening
the door to allowing us to do non-compliant transformations.  As compared with
GCC, our implementation can have a subset or a superset of these non-compliant
transformations, and we can still call that "GCC compatibility".  As
an analogous "not unusual" feature, both we and GCC do type based
alias analysis.  It's a perfectly standard-compliant thing to do
optimizations based on conclusions from the tbaa.  We both support the switch
'-f[no-]strict-aliasing' to control this (and we both enable it by
default).  Referring to this as "GCC compatibility" is perfectly
legitimate, in my view.  But if a user program has an aliasing bug in it, and
our tbaa directs us to aggressively optimize it, whereas GCC's doesn't
(and so the user gets the answer they wanted with GCC, but not with us), this
does not mean we have a bug, or that saying we're GCC compatible in terms of
'-f[no-]strict-aliasing' is a "lie".  We can do a superset or
subset of the optimizations that GCC does in terms of alias analysis, and we can
quite reasonably describe us a GCC compatible in terms of us providing this
capability.  A user insisting we have a bug in this tbaa situation is analogous
to your "pony" request about "float test_div(float a, float b) {
return a/b; }".  And (unrelated to Clang/LLVM) I've had this sort of
objection from users in tbaa situations in the past, where I've had to
defend my point that just because GCC didn't optimize it as aggressively as
the compiler I was providing, it wasn't a bug in our compiler.  So I'm
all for not giving everyone a pony.
> 
> But irrespective of how silly a test-case it may be to do:
> 
>    {
>      float x = a / c;
>      float y = b / c;
> 
>      if (y == 1.0f) {
>        // do some processing for when 'b' and 'c' are equal
>      } else {
>        // do other processing
>      }
> 
>      use(x, y);
>    }
> 
> I cannot in good conscience tell the customer that it's OK for us to
do:
> 
>      float tmp = 1.0f / c;
>      float x = a * tmp;
>      float y = b * tmp;
> 
> when they specified '-ffast-math -fno-reciprocal-math'.  They can
rightfully come back and say "what do you mean by
'-fno-reciprocal-math'?"  I have to call that a compiler-bug.
I agree with all you wrote above :)
But I’d add that a legitimate fix could be for the clang driver to issue an
error (or a warning) saying “-fno-reciprocal-math” isn’t compatible with
-ffast-math, disabling -fxxxxxx”  (with xxxxx being one or the other ;)).

— 
Mehdi



> 
> Thanks!
> -Warren
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nicolai Hähnle [mailto:nhaehnle at gmail.com] 
> Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2016 12:36 PM
> To: Kaylor, Andrew <andrew.kaylor at intel.com>; Ristow, Warren
<warren.ristow at sony.com>; mehdi.amini at apple.com
> Cc: llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] RFC: Consider changing the semantics of
'fast' flag implying all fast-math-flags
> 
> On 17.11.2016 19:54, Kaylor, Andrew wrote:
>>> All that said, I think we (the company I work for, Sony) will have
to
>>> implement support for these switches.  It comes down to GCC has
these
>>> switches (e.g., -fno-reciprocal-math and -fno-associative-math),
and they do suppress the transformations for our customers.
>>> They switch to Clang/LLVM, they use the same switches, and it
doesn't
>>> "work".  So as a practical matter, I think we will
support them.
>>> Whether the LLVM community in general feels that that's
required, is
>>> another question.  Until for your recent comments here, and
Nicolai's
>>> comments above, I would have thought the answer was clearly yes. 
But maybe that's not the case.
>> 
>> I think this is a very good point.  You (Sony) are not the only ones 
>> who are concerned with GCC-command line compatibility.  It definitely 
>> should hold some weight.  Given that this is something we could do 
>> with just a little more effort, I’m not sure mere simplicity is enough 
>> reason not to do it.
> 
> Right. I'm not fundamentally opposed to having these flags, as long as
we can agree that the *only* reason for having them is slightly better GCC
compatibility. The "slightly better" is important, too, because
promising real compatibility with any kind of fast math-type setting would
simply be a lie.
> 
> So (to answer Mehdi's question in a different part of the thread),
I'd consider keeping arcp around a wart, but an acceptable one. I'm fine
> with: IR 'fast' becomes IR 'reassociation' (or similar;
algebraically correct transforms that may change rounding), and reciprocal math
becomes "this thing that should logically be enabled by
'reassociation', but instead requires 'arcp' for
GCC-'compatibility' reasons".
> 
> And to be clear, 'reassociation' should _not_ by itself allow
transforms like X * (Y + 1) --> X * Y + X which can change the NaN-ness of
the result when Infs are among the arguments. That's what
'reassociation' + 'ninf' is for.
> 
> 
>> Also, on a slight tangent...
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>>> I'd be really curious to know if there is anybody who
really needs
>>>> arcp without fp-contract=fast or vice versa, or who needs both
of
>>>> these but not the X*log2(0.5*Y) transform you mentioned, and so
>>>> on.[1]
>> 
>> I just wanted to mention that fp-contract relates to things like FMA 
>> and shouldn’t be confused with fast-math.
> 
> It's conceptually the same type of thing though, isn't it? At least
fp-contract=fast, which means "use FMA even when it changes floating point
results (due to different rounding)". This is kind of like the
'fast' flag, which means "do all sorts of transformations even when
they change floating point results (due to different rounding)". I
don't know whether clang -ffast-math enables fp-contract=fast, but I'd
say that in a clean, from-scratch design, fp-contract=fast shouldn't be a
separate flag.
> 
> Cheers,
> Nicolai
> 
> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -Andy
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> *From:*Ristow, Warren [mailto:warren.ristow at sony.com]
>> *Sent:* Thursday, November 17, 2016 12:51 AM
>> *To:* mehdi.amini at apple.com
>> *Cc:* Kaylor, Andrew <andrew.kaylor at intel.com>; 
>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org; Nicolai Hähnle <nhaehnle at
gmail.com>
>> *Subject:* RE: [llvm-dev] RFC: Consider changing the semantics of
'fast'
>> flag implying all fast-math-flags
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Those are all good points.  Your reassociation point in the context of 
>> inlining is particularly interesting.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> FWIW, we also have a case where a customer wants
'-fno-associative-math'
>> to suppress reassociation under '-ffastmath'.  It would take me
a
>> while to find the specifics of the issue, but it was (if my memory is 
>> right) more of a real use-case.  (That is to say, the code that was
"failing"
>> due to reassociation didn't have an obvious fix like the reciprocal
>> situation, here, other than to turn off fast-math.)  In fact, the 
>> request to suppress reassociation was the motivation for creating
>> PR27372 in the first place (which eventually fed into this thread).  I 
>> have to say that on the reassociation point, my concern is that to 
>> really suppress that, we will have to suppress so much, that there 
>> will hardly be any point in using -ffast-math.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> I'd say your comments here are very similar to what Nicolai said in
>> another subthread of this discussion:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>>> I'd be really curious to know if there is anybody who
really needs
>>>> arcp
>> 
>>>> without fp-contract=fast or vice versa, or who needs both of
these
>>>> but
>> 
>>>> not the X*log2(0.5*Y) transform you mentioned, and so on.[1]
>> 
>>>> ...
>> 
>>>> [1] One case I _can_ think of (and which may have been a reason
for
>>>> the
>> 
>>>> proliferation of flags in the first place) is somebody who
enables
>>>> fast
>> 
>>>> math, but then doesn't want their results to change when
they update
>>>> the
>> 
>>>> compiler and get a new set of optimizations. But IMO that's
a use
>>>> case
>> 
>>>> that should be explicitly rejected.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> I think those are all really good points, and an argument can be made 
>> that when -ffast-math gives you results you don't want, then you
just
>> have to turn it off.  Essentially, the user can't "have his
cake and
>> eat it too".
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> All that said, I think we (the company I work for, Sony) will have to 
>> implement support for these switches.  It comes down to GCC has these 
>> switches (e.g., -fno-reciprocal-math and -fno-associative-math), and 
>> they do suppress the transformations for our customers.  They switch 
>> to Clang/LLVM, they use the same switches, and it doesn't
"work".  So
>> as a practical matter, I think we will support them.  Whether the LLVM 
>> community in general feels that that's required, is another
question.
>> Until for your recent comments here, and Nicolai's comments above,
I
>> would have thought the answer was clearly yes.  But maybe that's
not
>> the case.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> In summary, irrespective of any (subjective?) assessment of how 
>> legitimate a particular use-case is, do we want switches like:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>    -ffast-math -fno-reciprocal-math
>> 
>>     -ffast-math -fno-associative-math
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> to work?
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> For me, the answer is yes, because I have multiple customers that tell 
>> me they really want to leave -ffast-math on, but they want to be able 
>> to disable these sub-categories.  I've been approaching this under
the
>> assumption that the answer is yes for the Clang/LLVM community in
general.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> 
>> -Warren
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> *From:*mehdi.amini at apple.com <mailto:mehdi.amini at apple.com>
>> [mailto:mehdi.amini at apple.com]
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, November 16, 2016 10:46 PM
>> *To:* Ristow, Warren <warren.ristow at sony.com 
>> <mailto:warren.ristow at sony.com>>
>> *Cc:* Kaylor, Andrew <andrew.kaylor at intel.com 
>> <mailto:andrew.kaylor at intel.com>>; llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org
>> <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>; Nicolai Hähnle <nhaehnle
at gmail.com
>> <mailto:nhaehnle at gmail.com>>
>> *Subject:* Re: [llvm-dev] RFC: Consider changing the semantics of
'fast'
>> flag implying all fast-math-flags
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>    On Nov 16, 2016, at 10:04 PM, Ristow, Warren <warren.ristow at
sony.com
>>    <mailto:warren.ristow at sony.com>> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> Can you elaborate what kind of runtime failure is the reciprocal
>>    transformation triggering?
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>    Yes.  It was along the lines of:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>        {
>> 
>>          float x = a / c;
>> 
>>          float y = b / c;
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>          if (y == 1.0f) {
>> 
>>            // do some processing for when 'b' and 'c'
are equal
>> 
>>          } else {
>> 
>>            // do other processing
>> 
>>          }
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>          use(x, y);
>> 
>>        }
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>    Of course they understood they could easily change this code once
>>    they understood the issue.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>    But the fact that it "failed" for non-edge-case values of
'c', they
>>    were worried.  As an example of the non-edge-case aspect, when
'c'
>>    is 41.0f (and so of course 'b' is 41.0f), intuitively they
felt that
>>    this “would work precisely”, even with fast-math.  Once they
>>    understood more, they agreed this was reasonable with fast-math, but
>>    they had the underlying concern that if they encountered one case
>>    where 'num' and 'den' were equal (and
non-edge-case), yet 'num /
>>    den' wasn't precisely 1.0f, then even if they fixed this
situation
>>    where they encountered it, it might be lurking elsewhere in their
>>    code, and so they wanted to disable that transformation.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Thanks for elaborating.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> I’d be reluctant to call this situation a real use-case though.
>> 
>> Is the the distinction on reciprocal really make sense here? This user 
>> can have the same “surprising" anywhere in their code-base with 
>> reassociation as well:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> void foo (float a, float b) {
>> 
>>  float x = a - b;
>> 
>>  if (x == 0)
>> 
>>     … // only if a == b
>> 
>> }
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> That would sound totally reasonable, unless foo is inlined and 
>> reassociation would lead to a non-zero value for x even when a and b 
>> passed in to foo "if it wasn’t inlined" would be identical!
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> (Reminds me somehow of a client that was bitten by nnan: their 
>> assumption was that as long as they didn’t introduce NaN in the 
>> program everything was fine. However with fast-math some 
>> transformations were introducing NaN where there wasn’t before and 
>> propagating to other computation that were transformed under the 
>> assumption that no NaN would show up, it also turns out that making 
>> the code safe against NaN and efficient at the same time is hard, 
>> especially when the code itself it compiled with fast-math).
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> —
>> 
>> Mehdi
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>    *From:* mehdi.amini at apple.com <mailto:mehdi.amini at
apple.com>
>>    [mailto:mehdi.amini at apple.com]
>>    *Sent:* Wednesday, November 16, 2016 7:11 PM
>>    *To:* Ristow, Warren <warren.ristow at sony.com
>>    <mailto:warren.ristow at sony.com>>
>>    *Cc:* Kaylor, Andrew <andrew.kaylor at intel.com
>>    <mailto:andrew.kaylor at intel.com>>; llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org
>>    <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>; Nicolai Hähnle
<nhaehnle at gmail.com
>>    <mailto:nhaehnle at gmail.com>>
>>    *Subject:* Re: [llvm-dev] RFC: Consider changing the semantics of
>>    'fast' flag implying all fast-math-flags
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>        On Nov 16, 2016, at 6:22 PM, Ristow, Warren
>>        <warren.ristow at sony.com <mailto:warren.ristow at
sony.com>> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> ... except that Warren’s proposal that started this 
>> discussion seems to imply that he
>> 
>>> has a use case that requires reciprocals to be turned off
separately.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>        Just to close this loose end, yes I have a use case.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>        Specifically, we have a customer that turns on
'‑ffast‑math',
>>        but was getting a runtime failure due to the
>>        reciprocal-transformation being done.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>    Can you elaborate what kind of runtime failure is the reciprocal
>>    transformation triggering?
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>    —
>> 
>>    Mehdi
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>        They don't want turn off fast‑math because they like the
>>        performance improvement, and can live with the imprecision in
>>        most cases.  So they wanted to suppress just the
>>        reciprocal-transformation.  I intended to tell them the solution
>>        was simple: use '‑ffast‑math ‑fno‑reciprocal‑math'.  But
on
>>        trying it myself, I ran into the issue here.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>        Thanks,
>> 
>>        -Warren
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>        *From:* Kaylor, Andrew [mailto:andrew.kaylor at intel.com]
>>        *Sent:* Wednesday, November 16, 2016 4:13 PM
>>        *To:* Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com
>>        <mailto:mehdi.amini at apple.com>>; Ristow, Warren
>>        <warren.ristow at sony.com
>>        <mailto:warren.ristow at sony.com>>; llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org
>>        <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>; Nicolai Hähnle
>>        <nhaehnle at gmail.com <mailto:nhaehnle at
gmail.com>>
>>        *Subject:* RE: [llvm-dev] RFC: Consider changing the semantics
>>        of 'fast' flag implying all fast-math-flags
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>        I don’t really like the idea of updating checks of
>>        UnsafeAlgebra() to depend on all of the other flags.  It seems
>>        like it would be preferable to look at each optimization and
>>        figure out which flags it actually requires.  I suspect that in
>>        many cases the “new” flag (i.e. allowing reassociation, etc.)
>>        will be what is actually needed anyway.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>        I would be inclined to agree with Niolai’s suggestion of
>>        combining all the flags related to value safety, except that
>>        Warren’s proposal that started this discussion seems to imply
>>        that he has a use case that requires reciprocals to be turned
>>        off separately.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>        -Andy
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>        *From:* llvm-dev [mailto:llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org] *On
>>        Behalf Of *Mehdi Amini via llvm-dev
>>        *Sent:* Wednesday, November 16, 2016 8:55 AM
>>        *To:* Ristow, Warren <warren.ristow at sony.com
>>        <mailto:warren.ristow at sony.com>>
>>        *Cc:* llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org>
>>        *Subject:* Re: [llvm-dev] RFC: Consider changing the semantics
>>        of 'fast' flag implying all fast-math-flags
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>            On Nov 15, 2016, at 11:59 PM, Ristow, Warren
>>            <warren.ristow at sony.com <mailto:warren.ristow at
sony.com>> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>            Hi,
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>            Thanks for the quick feedback.  I see your points, but I
>>            have a few questions/comments.  I'll start at the end of
the
>>            previous post:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> ...
>> 
>>> I think these are valuable problems to solve, but you should tackle
them piece by piece:
>> 
>>> 
>> 
>>> 1) the clang part of overriding the individual FMF and emitting the
right IR is the first thing to fix.
>> 
>>> 2) the backend is still using the global UnsafeFPMath and it should
be killed.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>            I addressed this point (2) for the reciprocal aspect in the
>>            patch, but of course that wasn't useful without doing
>>            something about (1).
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>            Regarding (1), over
>>            at https://reviews.llvm.org/D26708#596610, David made the
>>            same point that it should be done in Clang.  I can
>>            understand that, but I wonder whether having the concept of
>>            the 'fast' flag in the IR that implies all the other
FMF
>>            makes sense?  I'm not seeing a good reason for it, but
since
>>            this is very new to me, I can easily imagine I'm missing
the
>>            big picture.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>            For example, in the LLVM IR
>>            (http://llvm.org/docs/LangRef.html#fast-math-flags) the
>>            fast-math flags 'nnan', 'ninf',
'nsz', 'arcp' and 'fast’ are
>>            defined.  Except for 'fast', each of these has a
fairly
>>            specific definition of what they mean.  For example, for
'arcp':
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>                arcp => "Allow optimizations to use the
reciprocal of an
>>            argument rather
>> 
>>                         than perform division."
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>            'fast' is unusual, in that it describes a fairly
generic set
>>            of aggressive floating-point optimizations:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>                fast => "Allow algebraically equivalent
transformations
>>            that may dramatically
>> 
>>                        change results in floating point (e.g.
>>            reassociate). This flag implies
>> 
>>                        all the others."
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>            Very loosely, 'fast' means "all the aggressive
>>            FP-transformations that are not controlled by one of the
>>            other 4, plus it implies all the other 4".  If for
>>            terminology, we call those additional aggressive
>>            optimizations 'aggr', then we have:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>                'fast' == 'aggr' + 'nnan' +
'ninf' + 'nsz' + 'arcp'
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>            So as I see it, if we want to disable only one of the other
>>            ones (like 'arcp', in my case), there isn't any
way to
>>            express that with these IR flags defined this way.  In
>>            short, we cannot turn on all the flags besides
'arcp'.  To
>>            do that, what we want is that somehow for the Clang
switches:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>              '-ffast-math -fno-reciprocal-math'
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>            to ultimately result in LLVM IR that has the following flags
>>            on in appropriate FP ops:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>              'aggr' + 'nnan' + 'ninf' +
‘nsz'
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>        Make sense, I missed that we can’t *subtract* from fast at the
>>        IR level.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>        I wouldn’t be opposed to have something along the line of
>>        “aggr”, but there is a tradeoff: some transformation may be
>>        harder to guard with this model.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>        Maybe that could be a starting point: changing the
>>        “UnsafeAlgebra” bit in the FMF to be “aggr” you mention and
>>        replace all the query to FastMathFlags::UnsafeAlgebra() to
>>        return true if all the bits are set in the Flags. This alone
>>        should be nothing more than a mechanical change I believe.
>> 
>>        The important part is then auditing all the users of
>>        UnsafeAlgebra() in the middle end and check if they can be
>>        “downgraded” to aggr safely: i.e. if they don’t need aggr *and*
>>        another flag.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>        —
>> 
>>        Mehdi
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>            But I don't see a way to express 'aggr' in the
IR.  We could
>>            do this, if we change the definition of the IR
'fast' flag
>>            to remove that sentence about implying all the others:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>                fast => "Allow algebraically equivalent
transformations
>>            that may dramatically
>> 
>>                        change results in floating point (e.g.
reassociate).
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>            (If we do something like that, we may want to change the
>>            name from 'fast' to something else (like
'aggr'), to avoid
>>            tying it too closely to the concept of the
'-ffast-math'
>>            switch.)
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>            As an aside, I don't know if the "reassociate"
example is
>>            the only other transformation that's allowed by
'fast' (I
>>            presume it isn't), but I think reassociation would be
better
>>            expressed by a separate flag, which could then be controlled
>>            independently via '-f[no]-associative-math' switch. 
Not
>>            having that flag exist separately in the FMF is the origin
>>            of PR27372.  But creating that flag and using it in the
>>            appropriate places would still run into these problems of
>>            'fast' implying all the others, which would make it
>>            impossible to disable reassociation while leaving all the
>>            other FMF transformations enabled.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>            To ask a concrete question using the current definition of
>>            'fast' (which includes enabling reassociation, as
the LLVM
>>            IR documentation of FMF says), how can we express in the IR
>>            that reciprocal-transformations are not allowed, but
>>            reassociation is allowed?
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>            So the bottom line is that I do see there are issues in
>>            Clang that are relevant.  But as long as 'fast'
means
>>            "'aggr' plus all the other FMF
transformations", I don't see
>>            how we can effectively disable a subset of those other FMF
>>            transformations (while leaving 'aggr'
transformations, such
>>            as reassociation, enabled).  With that in mind, my patch
>>            took one step in having 'fast' no longer imply all
the others.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>            Thanks,
>> 
>>            -Warren
>> 
>> 
>>

> On Nov 17, 2016, at 1:44 PM, Mehdi Amini via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> On Nov 17, 2016, at 1:24 PM, Ristow, Warren <warren.ristow at
sony.com> wrote:
>> 
>> On the plus side, I'm glad to see the conclusions of the last
couple of posts.
>> 
>> From Mehdi:
>> 
>>> Hope this clarify where I see the direction going, and even if you
don’t agree with my
>>> reasoning, the conclusion should be satisfactory on your side :)
>> 
>> I'd say that summarizes my thoughts on this well.
>> 
>> And from Nicolai:
>> 
>>> Right. I'm not fundamentally opposed to having these flags, ...
>> 
>> I do agree with much of what you both say, but definitely not all of
it.  The philosophy of not providing what a customer requests and instead
guiding them to a better alternative is something I agree with -- we don't
just give them a pony.  And I agree *strongly* that just because a program gets
the answer a user wants with GCC (using fast-math) and we get an answer they
view as "wrong", doesn't mean it's a bug of ours and that we
need to change to get the same answer as GCC.  That's not what our goal of
GCC compatibility means to me.
>> 
>> But we do have a switch '-fno-reciprocal-math' that we accept,
and even process/implement to some extent.  But that implementation has a bug. 
Fixing that bug so that when a user says '-ffast-math
-fno-reciprocal-math', we enable the fast-math transformations but
explicitly disable the reciprocal transformations is, in my view, the right
thing to do.  Simply, that is a bug that we ought to fix -- unless we agree to
abandon support of '-fno-reciprocal-math', which I think isn't under
consideration at this stage.  And FTR, I'd oppose that, not surprisingly. :)
> 
> 
> 
>> 
>> I'm not at all trying to justify the "pony" use-case from
this customer, but if we provide '-fno-reciprocal-math', I think we
ought to fix bugs we find in our implementation of it.  Fixing that bug
doesn't guarantee we'll then get the same answers as GCC does on every
program when compiled with '-ffast-math -fno-reciprocal-math', but IMO
that isn't required for us to describe our behavior as "GCC
compatibility" in this respect.
>> 
>> Fast-math is "unusual", in that the user is explicitly
opening the door to allowing us to do non-compliant transformations.  As
compared with GCC, our implementation can have a subset or a superset of these
non-compliant transformations, and we can still call that "GCC
compatibility".  As an analogous "not unusual" feature, both we
and GCC do type based alias analysis.  It's a perfectly standard-compliant
thing to do optimizations based on conclusions from the tbaa.  We both support
the switch '-f[no-]strict-aliasing' to control this (and we both enable
it by default).  Referring to this as "GCC compatibility" is perfectly
legitimate, in my view.  But if a user program has an aliasing bug in it, and
our tbaa directs us to aggressively optimize it, whereas GCC's doesn't
(and so the user gets the answer they wanted with GCC, but not with us), this
does not mean we have a bug, or that saying we're GCC compatible in terms of
'-f[no-]strict-aliasing' is a "lie".  We can do a superset or
subset of the optimizations that GCC does in terms of alias analysis, and we can
quite reasonably describe us a GCC compatible in terms of us providing this
capability.  A user insisting we have a bug in this tbaa situation is analogous
to your "pony" request about "float test_div(float a, float b) {
return a/b; }".  And (unrelated to Clang/LLVM) I've had this sort of
objection from users in tbaa situations in the past, where I've had to
defend my point that just because GCC didn't optimize it as aggressively as
the compiler I was providing, it wasn't a bug in our compiler.  So I'm
all for not giving everyone a pony.
>> 
>> But irrespective of how silly a test-case it may be to do:
>> 
>>   {
>>     float x = a / c;
>>     float y = b / c;
>> 
>>     if (y == 1.0f) {
>>       // do some processing for when 'b' and 'c' are
equal
>>     } else {
>>       // do other processing
>>     }
>> 
>>     use(x, y);
>>   }
>> 
>> I cannot in good conscience tell the customer that it's OK for us
to do:
>> 
>>     float tmp = 1.0f / c;
>>     float x = a * tmp;
>>     float y = b * tmp;
>> 
>> when they specified '-ffast-math -fno-reciprocal-math'.  They
can rightfully come back and say "what do you mean by
'-fno-reciprocal-math'?"  I have to call that a compiler-bug.
> 
> I agree with all you wrote above :)
> But I’d add that a legitimate fix could be for the clang driver to issue an
error (or a warning) saying “-fno-reciprocal-math” isn’t compatible with
-ffast-math, disabling -fxxxxxx”  (with xxxxx being one or the other ;))
I don’t want to add confusion, I feel I’m doing a bad job here somehow: I’m not
saying we *should* do this (rejecting in the driver). So let’s just fix it!

— 
Mehdi

>> 
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Nicolai Hähnle [mailto:nhaehnle at gmail.com] 
>> Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2016 12:36 PM
>> To: Kaylor, Andrew <andrew.kaylor at intel.com>; Ristow, Warren
<warren.ristow at sony.com>; mehdi.amini at apple.com
>> Cc: llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
>> Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] RFC: Consider changing the semantics of
'fast' flag implying all fast-math-flags
>> 
>> On 17.11.2016 19:54, Kaylor, Andrew wrote:
>>>> All that said, I think we (the company I work for, Sony) will
have to
>>>> implement support for these switches.  It comes down to GCC has
these
>>>> switches (e.g., -fno-reciprocal-math and
-fno-associative-math), and they do suppress the transformations for our
customers.
>>>> They switch to Clang/LLVM, they use the same switches, and it
doesn't
>>>> "work".  So as a practical matter, I think we will
support them.
>>>> Whether the LLVM community in general feels that that's
required, is
>>>> another question.  Until for your recent comments here, and
Nicolai's
>>>> comments above, I would have thought the answer was clearly
yes.  But maybe that's not the case.
>>> 
>>> I think this is a very good point.  You (Sony) are not the only
ones
>>> who are concerned with GCC-command line compatibility.  It
definitely
>>> should hold some weight.  Given that this is something we could do 
>>> with just a little more effort, I’m not sure mere simplicity is
enough
>>> reason not to do it.
>> 
>> Right. I'm not fundamentally opposed to having these flags, as long
as we can agree that the *only* reason for having them is slightly better GCC
compatibility. The "slightly better" is important, too, because
promising real compatibility with any kind of fast math-type setting would
simply be a lie.
>> 
>> So (to answer Mehdi's question in a different part of the thread),
I'd consider keeping arcp around a wart, but an acceptable one. I'm fine
>> with: IR 'fast' becomes IR 'reassociation' (or similar;
algebraically correct transforms that may change rounding), and reciprocal math
becomes "this thing that should logically be enabled by
'reassociation', but instead requires 'arcp' for
GCC-'compatibility' reasons".
>> 
>> And to be clear, 'reassociation' should _not_ by itself allow
transforms like X * (Y + 1) --> X * Y + X which can change the NaN-ness of
the result when Infs are among the arguments. That's what
'reassociation' + 'ninf' is for.
>> 
>> 
>>> Also, on a slight tangent...
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>>> I'd be really curious to know if there is anybody who
really needs
>>>>> arcp without fp-contract=fast or vice versa, or who needs
both of
>>>>> these but not the X*log2(0.5*Y) transform you mentioned,
and so
>>>>> on.[1]
>>> 
>>> I just wanted to mention that fp-contract relates to things like
FMA
>>> and shouldn’t be confused with fast-math.
>> 
>> It's conceptually the same type of thing though, isn't it? At
least fp-contract=fast, which means "use FMA even when it changes floating
point results (due to different rounding)". This is kind of like the
'fast' flag, which means "do all sorts of transformations even when
they change floating point results (due to different rounding)". I
don't know whether clang -ffast-math enables fp-contract=fast, but I'd
say that in a clean, from-scratch design, fp-contract=fast shouldn't be a
separate flag.
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> Nicolai
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -Andy
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> *From:*Ristow, Warren [mailto:warren.ristow at sony.com]
>>> *Sent:* Thursday, November 17, 2016 12:51 AM
>>> *To:* mehdi.amini at apple.com
>>> *Cc:* Kaylor, Andrew <andrew.kaylor at intel.com>; 
>>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org; Nicolai Hähnle <nhaehnle at
gmail.com>
>>> *Subject:* RE: [llvm-dev] RFC: Consider changing the semantics of
'fast'
>>> flag implying all fast-math-flags
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Those are all good points.  Your reassociation point in the context
of
>>> inlining is particularly interesting.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> FWIW, we also have a case where a customer wants
'-fno-associative-math'
>>> to suppress reassociation under '-ffastmath'.  It would
take me a
>>> while to find the specifics of the issue, but it was (if my memory
is
>>> right) more of a real use-case.  (That is to say, the code that was
"failing"
>>> due to reassociation didn't have an obvious fix like the
reciprocal
>>> situation, here, other than to turn off fast-math.)  In fact, the 
>>> request to suppress reassociation was the motivation for creating
>>> PR27372 in the first place (which eventually fed into this thread).
I
>>> have to say that on the reassociation point, my concern is that to 
>>> really suppress that, we will have to suppress so much, that there 
>>> will hardly be any point in using -ffast-math.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> I'd say your comments here are very similar to what Nicolai
said in
>>> another subthread of this discussion:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>>> I'd be really curious to know if there is anybody who
really needs
>>>>> arcp
>>> 
>>>>> without fp-contract=fast or vice versa, or who needs both
of these
>>>>> but
>>> 
>>>>> not the X*log2(0.5*Y) transform you mentioned, and so
on.[1]
>>> 
>>>>> ...
>>> 
>>>>> [1] One case I _can_ think of (and which may have been a
reason for
>>>>> the
>>> 
>>>>> proliferation of flags in the first place) is somebody who
enables
>>>>> fast
>>> 
>>>>> math, but then doesn't want their results to change
when they update
>>>>> the
>>> 
>>>>> compiler and get a new set of optimizations. But IMO
that's a use
>>>>> case
>>> 
>>>>> that should be explicitly rejected.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> I think those are all really good points, and an argument can be
made
>>> that when -ffast-math gives you results you don't want, then
you just
>>> have to turn it off.  Essentially, the user can't "have
his cake and
>>> eat it too".
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> All that said, I think we (the company I work for, Sony) will have
to
>>> implement support for these switches.  It comes down to GCC has
these
>>> switches (e.g., -fno-reciprocal-math and -fno-associative-math),
and
>>> they do suppress the transformations for our customers.  They
switch
>>> to Clang/LLVM, they use the same switches, and it doesn't
"work".  So
>>> as a practical matter, I think we will support them.  Whether the
LLVM
>>> community in general feels that that's required, is another
question.
>>> Until for your recent comments here, and Nicolai's comments
above, I
>>> would have thought the answer was clearly yes.  But maybe
that's not
>>> the case.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> In summary, irrespective of any (subjective?) assessment of how 
>>> legitimate a particular use-case is, do we want switches like:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>   -ffast-math -fno-reciprocal-math
>>> 
>>>    -ffast-math -fno-associative-math
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> to work?
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> For me, the answer is yes, because I have multiple customers that
tell
>>> me they really want to leave -ffast-math on, but they want to be
able
>>> to disable these sub-categories.  I've been approaching this
under the
>>> assumption that the answer is yes for the Clang/LLVM community in
general.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> 
>>> -Warren
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> *From:*mehdi.amini at apple.com <mailto:mehdi.amini at
apple.com>
>>> [mailto:mehdi.amini at apple.com]
>>> *Sent:* Wednesday, November 16, 2016 10:46 PM
>>> *To:* Ristow, Warren <warren.ristow at sony.com 
>>> <mailto:warren.ristow at sony.com>>
>>> *Cc:* Kaylor, Andrew <andrew.kaylor at intel.com 
>>> <mailto:andrew.kaylor at intel.com>>; llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org
>>> <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>; Nicolai Hähnle
<nhaehnle at gmail.com
>>> <mailto:nhaehnle at gmail.com>>
>>> *Subject:* Re: [llvm-dev] RFC: Consider changing the semantics of
'fast'
>>> flag implying all fast-math-flags
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>   On Nov 16, 2016, at 10:04 PM, Ristow, Warren <warren.ristow at
sony.com
>>>   <mailto:warren.ristow at sony.com>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> Can you elaborate what kind of runtime failure is the
reciprocal
>>>   transformation triggering?
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>   Yes.  It was along the lines of:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>       {
>>> 
>>>         float x = a / c;
>>> 
>>>         float y = b / c;
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>         if (y == 1.0f) {
>>> 
>>>           // do some processing for when 'b' and
'c' are equal
>>> 
>>>         } else {
>>> 
>>>           // do other processing
>>> 
>>>         }
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>         use(x, y);
>>> 
>>>       }
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>   Of course they understood they could easily change this code once
>>>   they understood the issue.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>   But the fact that it "failed" for non-edge-case values
of 'c', they
>>>   were worried.  As an example of the non-edge-case aspect, when
'c'
>>>   is 41.0f (and so of course 'b' is 41.0f), intuitively
they felt that
>>>   this “would work precisely”, even with fast-math.  Once they
>>>   understood more, they agreed this was reasonable with fast-math,
but
>>>   they had the underlying concern that if they encountered one case
>>>   where 'num' and 'den' were equal (and
non-edge-case), yet 'num /
>>>   den' wasn't precisely 1.0f, then even if they fixed this
situation
>>>   where they encountered it, it might be lurking elsewhere in their
>>>   code, and so they wanted to disable that transformation.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Thanks for elaborating.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> I’d be reluctant to call this situation a real use-case though.
>>> 
>>> Is the the distinction on reciprocal really make sense here? This
user
>>> can have the same “surprising" anywhere in their code-base
with
>>> reassociation as well:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> void foo (float a, float b) {
>>> 
>>> float x = a - b;
>>> 
>>> if (x == 0)
>>> 
>>>    … // only if a == b
>>> 
>>> }
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> That would sound totally reasonable, unless foo is inlined and 
>>> reassociation would lead to a non-zero value for x even when a and
b
>>> passed in to foo "if it wasn’t inlined" would be
identical!
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> (Reminds me somehow of a client that was bitten by nnan: their 
>>> assumption was that as long as they didn’t introduce NaN in the 
>>> program everything was fine. However with fast-math some 
>>> transformations were introducing NaN where there wasn’t before and 
>>> propagating to other computation that were transformed under the 
>>> assumption that no NaN would show up, it also turns out that making
>>> the code safe against NaN and efficient at the same time is hard, 
>>> especially when the code itself it compiled with fast-math).
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> —
>>> 
>>> Mehdi
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>   *From:* mehdi.amini at apple.com <mailto:mehdi.amini at
apple.com>
>>>   [mailto:mehdi.amini at apple.com]
>>>   *Sent:* Wednesday, November 16, 2016 7:11 PM
>>>   *To:* Ristow, Warren <warren.ristow at sony.com
>>>   <mailto:warren.ristow at sony.com>>
>>>   *Cc:* Kaylor, Andrew <andrew.kaylor at intel.com
>>>   <mailto:andrew.kaylor at intel.com>>; llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org
>>>   <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>; Nicolai Hähnle
<nhaehnle at gmail.com
>>>   <mailto:nhaehnle at gmail.com>>
>>>   *Subject:* Re: [llvm-dev] RFC: Consider changing the semantics of
>>>   'fast' flag implying all fast-math-flags
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>       On Nov 16, 2016, at 6:22 PM, Ristow, Warren
>>>       <warren.ristow at sony.com <mailto:warren.ristow at
sony.com>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> ... except that Warren’s proposal that started this 
>>> discussion seems to imply that he
>>> 
>>>> has a use case that requires reciprocals to be turned off
separately.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>       Just to close this loose end, yes I have a use case.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>       Specifically, we have a customer that turns on
'‑ffast‑math',
>>>       but was getting a runtime failure due to the
>>>       reciprocal-transformation being done.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>   Can you elaborate what kind of runtime failure is the reciprocal
>>>   transformation triggering?
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>   —
>>> 
>>>   Mehdi
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>       They don't want turn off fast‑math because they like the
>>>       performance improvement, and can live with the imprecision in
>>>       most cases.  So they wanted to suppress just the
>>>       reciprocal-transformation.  I intended to tell them the
solution
>>>       was simple: use '‑ffast‑math ‑fno‑reciprocal‑math'. 
But on
>>>       trying it myself, I ran into the issue here.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>       Thanks,
>>> 
>>>       -Warren
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>       *From:* Kaylor, Andrew [mailto:andrew.kaylor at intel.com]
>>>       *Sent:* Wednesday, November 16, 2016 4:13 PM
>>>       *To:* Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com
>>>       <mailto:mehdi.amini at apple.com>>; Ristow, Warren
>>>       <warren.ristow at sony.com
>>>       <mailto:warren.ristow at sony.com>>; llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org
>>>       <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>; Nicolai Hähnle
>>>       <nhaehnle at gmail.com <mailto:nhaehnle at
gmail.com>>
>>>       *Subject:* RE: [llvm-dev] RFC: Consider changing the
semantics
>>>       of 'fast' flag implying all fast-math-flags
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>       I don’t really like the idea of updating checks of
>>>       UnsafeAlgebra() to depend on all of the other flags.  It
seems
>>>       like it would be preferable to look at each optimization and
>>>       figure out which flags it actually requires.  I suspect that
in
>>>       many cases the “new” flag (i.e. allowing reassociation, etc.)
>>>       will be what is actually needed anyway.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>       I would be inclined to agree with Niolai’s suggestion of
>>>       combining all the flags related to value safety, except that
>>>       Warren’s proposal that started this discussion seems to imply
>>>       that he has a use case that requires reciprocals to be turned
>>>       off separately.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>       -Andy
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>       *From:* llvm-dev [mailto:llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org]
*On
>>>       Behalf Of *Mehdi Amini via llvm-dev
>>>       *Sent:* Wednesday, November 16, 2016 8:55 AM
>>>       *To:* Ristow, Warren <warren.ristow at sony.com
>>>       <mailto:warren.ristow at sony.com>>
>>>       *Cc:* llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org>
>>>       *Subject:* Re: [llvm-dev] RFC: Consider changing the
semantics
>>>       of 'fast' flag implying all fast-math-flags
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>           On Nov 15, 2016, at 11:59 PM, Ristow, Warren
>>>           <warren.ristow at sony.com <mailto:warren.ristow at
sony.com>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>           Hi,
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>           Thanks for the quick feedback.  I see your points, but I
>>>           have a few questions/comments.  I'll start at the end
of the
>>>           previous post:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> ...
>>> 
>>>> I think these are valuable problems to solve, but you should
tackle them piece by piece:
>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>>> 1) the clang part of overriding the individual FMF and emitting
the right IR is the first thing to fix.
>>> 
>>>> 2) the backend is still using the global UnsafeFPMath and it
should be killed.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>           I addressed this point (2) for the reciprocal aspect in
the
>>>           patch, but of course that wasn't useful without doing
>>>           something about (1).
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>           Regarding (1), over
>>>           at https://reviews.llvm.org/D26708#596610, David made the
>>>           same point that it should be done in Clang.  I can
>>>           understand that, but I wonder whether having the concept
of
>>>           the 'fast' flag in the IR that implies all the
other FMF
>>>           makes sense?  I'm not seeing a good reason for it,
but since
>>>           this is very new to me, I can easily imagine I'm
missing the
>>>           big picture.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>           For example, in the LLVM IR
>>>           (http://llvm.org/docs/LangRef.html#fast-math-flags) the
>>>           fast-math flags 'nnan', 'ninf',
'nsz', 'arcp' and 'fast’ are
>>>           defined.  Except for 'fast', each of these has a
fairly
>>>           specific definition of what they mean.  For example, for
'arcp':
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>               arcp => "Allow optimizations to use the
reciprocal of an
>>>           argument rather
>>> 
>>>                        than perform division."
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>           'fast' is unusual, in that it describes a fairly
generic set
>>>           of aggressive floating-point optimizations:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>               fast => "Allow algebraically equivalent
transformations
>>>           that may dramatically
>>> 
>>>                       change results in floating point (e.g.
>>>           reassociate). This flag implies
>>> 
>>>                       all the others."
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>           Very loosely, 'fast' means "all the
aggressive
>>>           FP-transformations that are not controlled by one of the
>>>           other 4, plus it implies all the other 4".  If for
>>>           terminology, we call those additional aggressive
>>>           optimizations 'aggr', then we have:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>               'fast' == 'aggr' + 'nnan' +
'ninf' + 'nsz' + 'arcp'
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>           So as I see it, if we want to disable only one of the
other
>>>           ones (like 'arcp', in my case), there isn't
any way to
>>>           express that with these IR flags defined this way.  In
>>>           short, we cannot turn on all the flags besides
'arcp'.  To
>>>           do that, what we want is that somehow for the Clang
switches:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>             '-ffast-math -fno-reciprocal-math'
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>           to ultimately result in LLVM IR that has the following
flags
>>>           on in appropriate FP ops:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>             'aggr' + 'nnan' + 'ninf' +
‘nsz'
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>       Make sense, I missed that we can’t *subtract* from fast at
the
>>>       IR level.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>       I wouldn’t be opposed to have something along the line of
>>>       “aggr”, but there is a tradeoff: some transformation may be
>>>       harder to guard with this model.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>       Maybe that could be a starting point: changing the
>>>       “UnsafeAlgebra” bit in the FMF to be “aggr” you mention and
>>>       replace all the query to FastMathFlags::UnsafeAlgebra() to
>>>       return true if all the bits are set in the Flags. This alone
>>>       should be nothing more than a mechanical change I believe.
>>> 
>>>       The important part is then auditing all the users of
>>>       UnsafeAlgebra() in the middle end and check if they can be
>>>       “downgraded” to aggr safely: i.e. if they don’t need aggr
*and*
>>>       another flag.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>       —
>>> 
>>>       Mehdi
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>           But I don't see a way to express 'aggr' in
the IR.  We could
>>>           do this, if we change the definition of the IR
'fast' flag
>>>           to remove that sentence about implying all the others:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>               fast => "Allow algebraically equivalent
transformations
>>>           that may dramatically
>>> 
>>>                       change results in floating point (e.g.
reassociate).
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>           (If we do something like that, we may want to change the
>>>           name from 'fast' to something else (like
'aggr'), to avoid
>>>           tying it too closely to the concept of the
'-ffast-math'
>>>           switch.)
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>           As an aside, I don't know if the
"reassociate" example is
>>>           the only other transformation that's allowed by
'fast' (I
>>>           presume it isn't), but I think reassociation would be
better
>>>           expressed by a separate flag, which could then be
controlled
>>>           independently via '-f[no]-associative-math'
switch.  Not
>>>           having that flag exist separately in the FMF is the
origin
>>>           of PR27372.  But creating that flag and using it in the
>>>           appropriate places would still run into these problems of
>>>           'fast' implying all the others, which would make
it
>>>           impossible to disable reassociation while leaving all the
>>>           other FMF transformations enabled.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>           To ask a concrete question using the current definition
of
>>>           'fast' (which includes enabling reassociation, as
the LLVM
>>>           IR documentation of FMF says), how can we express in the
IR
>>>           that reciprocal-transformations are not allowed, but
>>>           reassociation is allowed?
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>           So the bottom line is that I do see there are issues in
>>>           Clang that are relevant.  But as long as 'fast'
means
>>>           "'aggr' plus all the other FMF
transformations", I don't see
>>>           how we can effectively disable a subset of those other
FMF
>>>           transformations (while leaving 'aggr'
transformations, such
>>>           as reassociation, enabled).  With that in mind, my patch
>>>           took one step in having 'fast' no longer imply
all the others.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>           Thanks,
>>> 
>>>           -Warren
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
<http://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/20161117/aaf953d5/attachment-0001.html>