similar to: [cfe-dev] Why is #pragma STDC FENV_ACCESS not supported?

> On Jan 9, 2018, at 1:53 PM, Kaylor, Andrew via cfe-dev <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > I think we’re going to need to create a new mechanism to communicate strict FP modes to the backend. I think we need to avoid doing anything that will require re-inventing or duplicating all of the pattern matching that goes on in instruction selection (which is the reason we’re

I think we're going to need to create a new mechanism to communicate strict FP modes to the backend. I think we need to avoid doing anything that will require re-inventing or duplicating all of the pattern matching that goes on in instruction selection (which is the reason we're currently dropping that information). I'm out of my depth on this transition, but I think maybe we could

On 9 Jan 2018 22:55, "John McCall via llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: On Jan 9, 2018, at 3:50 PM, Kaylor, Andrew <andrew.kaylor at intel.com> wrote: >The standard argument against trying to introduce "scope-like" mechanisms to LLVM IR is inlining; >unless you're going to prevent functions that use stricter/laxer FP rules from being inlined

On Tue, Jan 09, 2018 at 06:53:51PM +0000, Kaylor, Andrew via cfe-dev wrote: > I think we're going to need to create a new mechanism to communicate > strict FP modes to the backend. I think we need to avoid doing anything > that will require re-inventing or duplicating all of the pattern > matching that goes on in instruction selection (which is the reason >

>The standard argument against trying to introduce "scope-like" mechanisms to LLVM IR is inlining; >unless you're going to prevent functions that use stricter/laxer FP rules from being inlined >into >each other (which sounds disastrous), you're going to need to communicate strictness on an >instruction-by-instruction basis. If the backend wants to handle that by

Oh, and other thing: Are you planning to attend the upcoming LLVM developer's meeting in Bristol? I thought it might be good idea to get all parties interested in this feature together in person, if we're at the same meeting anyway. So I was thinking of submitting a proposal for a BoF session on this topic ... Mit freundlichen Gruessen / Best Regards Ulrich Weigand -- Dr. Ulrich

Hi Kevin, Thanks for reaching out about this, and thanks especially for offering to help. I've had some other priorities that have prevented me from making progress on this recently. As far as I know, there is no support at all in clang for handling the FENV_ACCESS pragma. I have a sample patch somewhere that I created to demonstrate how the front end would create the constrained intrinsics

Hi Andrew, sorry for the delay, I only now got some time to look into this a bit more. But I still have a number of questions of how to actually implement this in the back end. Looking at this bottom-up, starting with the behavior of the actual machine instructions, we have (at least on SystemZ) the following things to consider: A) Rounding mode Most FP arithmetic instructions use the

On 01/08/2018 07:06 PM, Richard Smith via llvm-dev wrote: > On 8 January 2018 at 11:15, Kaylor, Andrew via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote: > > Hi Kevin, > > Thanks for reaching out about this, and thanks especially for > offering to help. I've had some other priorities that have > prevented

On 8 January 2018 at 11:15, Kaylor, Andrew via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Hi Kevin, > > Thanks for reaching out about this, and thanks especially for offering to > help. I've had some other priorities that have prevented me from making > progress on this recently. > > As far as I know, there is no support at all in clang for handling the >

On 8 Jan 2018 19:50, "Hal Finkel via cfe-dev" <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: On 01/08/2018 07:06 PM, Richard Smith via llvm-dev wrote: On 8 January 2018 at 11:15, Kaylor, Andrew via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Hi Kevin, > > Thanks for reaching out about this, and thanks especially for offering to > help. I've had some other

I'm working with Andrew on D43515 right now, and some of these unanswered questions are directly relevant to that patch. So.... On Fri, Feb 09, 2018 at 03:42:20PM +0100, Ulrich Weigand wrote: > C) Floating-point exceptions > If a mask bit in the floating-point status register is set, then all FP > instructions will *trap* whenever an IEEE exception condition is >

I know next to nothing about the AST, so I'll leave commentary on that to someone who does except to say that I don't believe there is a strong connection between Richard's suggestion and Hal's. An IRBuilder can be created anywhere (and is frequently used in the optimizer). When the front end support is implemented it may use an IRBuilder that leverages the state Hal is suggesting,

Hello, at the recent EuroLLVM developer meeting in Bristol I held a BoF session on the topic "Towards implementing #pragma STDC FENV_ACCESS". I've also had a number of follow-on discussions both on-site in Bristol and online since. This post is intended as a summary of my current understanding set of requirements and implementation details covering the overall topic. I'm

Hi Ulrich, I am interested in knowing if the current proposals also take into account the FP_CONTRACT pragma and the ability to implement options that imply a specific value for the FLT_EVAL_METHOD macro. Additionally, I am not aware of the IR being able to represent the potentially deferred loss of precision that the C language semantics provide; in particular, applying such semantics to the

Yes, you’re probably right about this. I was originally thinking of FENV_ACCESS as a fully strict mode of operation, but what you’re suggesting aligns with what Cameron suggested and even some of my own reasoning on other points. So, let me amend my previous proposal to say: STDC FENV_ACCESS {ON|OFF} Patch in progress. I think ON should force the following: except_behavior { strict }

Hi all, I'm trying to put together a set of rules for how the various floating point semantic modes should be handled in clang. A lot of this information will be relevant to other front ends, but the details are necessarily bound to a front end implementation so I'm framing the discussion here in terms of clang. Other front ends can choose to follow clang or not. The existence of this set

On 05/23/2018 11:06 AM, Hubert Tong via llvm-dev wrote: > Hi Ulrich, > > I am interested in knowing if the current proposals also take into > account the FP_CONTRACT pragma We should already do this (we turn relevant operations into the @llvm.fmuladd. when FP_CONTRACT is set to on during IR generation). > and the ability to implement options that imply a specific value for >

> ... math errno ... I wouldn't recommend to anyone that they should rely on math errno (because I don't trust libraries to correctly support it). My goal here was to incorporate our existing support for it into the rest of what I'm trying to document. My understanding is that for clang this primarily controls whether or not we feel free to substitute intrinsics for recognized

Hi Hal, I only just noticed that about a year ago, Jim removed CPU auto-detection for the X86 target: http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2014-April/071991.html http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20140407/212676.html >Currently the X86 backend does CPU auto-detection and subtarget feature >detection when the TargetMachine is created if no explicit CPU was