similar to: [LLVMdev] Documentation of fmuladd intrinsic

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Cameron McInally" <cameron.mcinally at nyu.edu> > To: "Andrew Booker" <andrew.booker at arm.com> > Cc: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu > Sent: Friday, January 11, 2013 12:37:07 PM > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Documentation of fmuladd intrinsic > > > On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 1:08 PM, Andrew Booker < >

Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> writes: > There are a few conditions that contribute to the decision of whether > or not to make the fmuladd -> fma translation. The relevant code is in > CodeGen/SelectionDAG/SelectionDAGBuilder.cpp: > > case Intrinsic::fmuladd: { > EVT VT = TLI.getValueType(I.getType()); > if (TM.Options.AllowFPOpFusion !=

Out of curiosity, what is the use-case for isFMAFasterThanMulAndAdd? If a target declares that FMA is actually slower for a given type, why not just declare it as illegal for that type? Wouldn't that accomplish the same thing without another target hook? I feel like I'm missing something here. On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 2:40 PM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > -----

----- Original Message ----- > From: dag at cray.com > To: "Justin Holewinski" <justin.holewinski at gmail.com> > Cc: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov>, "LLVM Developers Mailing List" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> > Sent: Friday, January 11, 2013 2:13:50 PM > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Documentation of fmuladd intrinsic > > Justin

On 22.08.2018 17:52, Ryan Taylor wrote: > This is probably going to effect on other backends and break llvm-lit > for them? Very likely, yes. Can you take a look at how big the fallout is? This might give us a hint about what other frontends might expect, and who needs to be involved in the discussion (if one is needed). Cheers, Nicolai > > On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 11:41 AM

The fmuladd intrinsic is described as saying that a multiply and addition sequence can be fused into an fma instruction "if the code generator determines that the fused expression would be legal and efficient". (http://llvm.org/docs/LangRef.html#llvm-fma-intrinsic) I've spent a bit of time puzzling over how a code generator is supposed to know if it's legal to generate an fma

On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 3:16 PM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: dag at cray.com > > To: "Justin Holewinski" <justin.holewinski at gmail.com> > > Cc: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov>, "LLVM Developers Mailing List" < > llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> > > Sent: Friday,

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Justin Holewinski" <justin.holewinski at gmail.com> > To: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov> > Cc: "David A. Greene" <dag at cray.com>, "LLVM Developers Mailing List" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> > Sent: Friday, January 11, 2013 2:19:01 PM > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Documentation of

Hello, To any out-of-tree targets, please be aware that I intend to commit a patch that will break the build of any target implementing TargetLoweringBase::isFMAFasterThanMulAndAdd, for the reasons described below. (Basically, the current interface definition is broken and not followed, and no in-tree target was doing the right thing with it, so it is unlikely any out-of-tree target is either...)

Justin Holewinski <justin.holewinski at gmail.com> writes: > Out of curiosity, what is the use-case for isFMAFasterThanMulAndAdd? >  If a target declares that FMA is actually slower for a given type, > why not just declare it as illegal for that type?  Wouldn't that > accomplish the same thing without another target hook?  I feel like I'm > missing something here.

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Sanjay Patel" <spatel at rotateright.com> > To: "Hal J. Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov> > Cc: "Mehdi Amini" <mehdi.amini at apple.com>, "llvm-dev" > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>, "cfe-dev" <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org>, > "andrew kaylor" <andrew.kaylor at

On 21.08.2018 16:08, Ryan Taylor via llvm-dev wrote: > So I have a test case where: > > %20 = fmul nnan arcp float %15, %19 > %21 = fadd reassoc nnan arcp contract float %20, -1.000000e+00 > > is being contracted in DAG to fmad. Is this correct since the fmul has > no reassoc or contract fast math flag? By having the reassoc and contract flags on fadd, the frontend is

Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE DROID On Nov 17, 2016 5:53 PM, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com<mailto:mehdi.amini at apple.com>> wrote: > > >> On Nov 17, 2016, at 4:33 PM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov<mailto:hfinkel at anl.gov>> wrote: >> >> >> ________________________________ >>> >>> From: "Warren

On 22.08.2018 13:29, Ryan Taylor wrote: > The example starts as SPIR-V with the NoContraction decoration flag on > the fmul. > > I think what you are saying seems valid in that if the user had put the > flag on the fadd instead of the fmul it would not contract and so in > this example the user needs to put the NoContraction on the fadd though > I'm not sure

I don't think the global fast math flag should override the NoContraction decoration as that's mostly the point of that decoration to begin with, to have fine granular control while still having a broad sweeping optimization. Did I miss your point? I feel like I did. On Thu, Aug 23, 2018, 3:42 PM Michael Berg <michael_c_berg at apple.com> wrote: > Ryan, > > Given that the

I'm curious why the condition to fuse is this: // Floating-point multiply-add with intermediate rounding. bool HasFMAD = (LegalOperations && TLI.isOperationLegal(ISD::FMAD, VT)); static bool isContractable(SDNode *N) { SDNodeFlags F = N->getFlags(); return F.hasAllowContract() || F.hasAllowReassociation(); } bool CanFuse = Options.UnsafeFPMath || isContractable(N); bool

Maybe there is a cleaner solution but it seems like adding a 'nocontract' flag is close to the intention of spir-v and is an easy check in the DAGCombiner without breaking anything else and its intentions are very clear. Right now the DAGCombiner logic doesn't seem to be able to handle the case of having fast math globally with instruction level flags to turn off fast math. Right now,

Nicolai, Can you do without the use of -fp-contract=fast (Options.AllowFPOpFusion == FPOpFusion::Fast ) and without Unsafe? As I SPIR-V’s usage of NoContraction flies in the face of both. If so, you should be able to get what you want, as then you are down to just IR flags. You will need a model to generate the correct behavior though in your SPIR-V implementation wrt IR flag emissions.

Michael, >From the spec with regards to reassoc: – 15225 Include no re-association as a constraint required by the NoContraction Decoration. I don't see a solution given the situation where -fp-contract=fast and we want to contract. Furthermore, I think a 'nocontract' flag will allow the IR to be more readable in it's intention. The problem is you can have 2 fp arith

Hi Tim, Thanks for the thorough explanation. It makes perfect sense. I was not aware fast-math is supposed to prevent more precision being used than what is in the standard. I came across this issue while looking into the output or different compilers. XL and Microsoft compiler seem to have that turned on by default. But I assume that clang follows what gcc does, and have that turned off.