similar to: what does -ffp-contract=fast allow?

----- 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

This is just paraphrasing from D26602, so credit to Nicolai for first raising the issue there. float foo(float x, float y) { return x * (y + 1); } $ ./clang -O2 xy1.c -S -o - -target aarch64 -ffp-contract=fast | grep fm fmadd s0, s1, s0, s0 Is this a bug? We transformed the original expression into: x * y + x When x=INF and y=0, the code returns INF if we don't reassociate. With

>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

> On Mar 15, 2017, at 2:00 PM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > > > On 03/15/2017 01:47 PM, Adam Nemet wrote: >> >>> On Mar 15, 2017, at 11:36 AM, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com <mailto:mehdi.amini at apple.com>> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> On Mar 15, 2017, at 10:13 AM, Hal Finkel via cfe-dev <cfe-dev at

> On Mar 15, 2017, at 11:36 AM, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> wrote: > > >> On Mar 15, 2017, at 10:13 AM, Hal Finkel via cfe-dev <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote: >> >> >> On 03/15/2017 12:10 PM, Adam Nemet via llvm-dev wrote: >>> Relevant to this discussion is

> On Mar 15, 2017, at 2:30 PM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > > > On 03/15/2017 04:05 PM, Adam Nemet wrote: >> >>> On Mar 15, 2017, at 2:00 PM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov <mailto:hfinkel at anl.gov>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 03/15/2017 01:47 PM, Adam Nemet wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Mar

> 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

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

On 03/16/2017 04:13 PM, Adam Nemet wrote: > >> On Mar 15, 2017, at 2:51 PM, Adam Nemet <anemet at apple.com >> <mailto:anemet at apple.com>> wrote: >> >>> >>> On Mar 15, 2017, at 2:30 PM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov >>> <mailto:hfinkel at anl.gov>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 03/15/2017 04:05 PM, Adam

> On Mar 16, 2017, at 4:04 PM, Adam Nemet via cfe-dev <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> >> On Mar 16, 2017, at 3:25 PM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov <mailto:hfinkel at anl.gov>> wrote: >> >> >> >> On 03/16/2017 04:13 PM, Adam Nemet wrote: >>> >>>> On Mar 15, 2017, at 2:51 PM, Adam Nemet <anemet at

On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 8:09 PM Finkel, Hal J. <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > Andy, thanks for writing this up. A few thoughts: > > 1. The mental model that I have is that there is always an FP_CONTRACT pragma: there's some default (implicit) pragma at the beginning, and what it says (off/on/fast) is controlled by the command-line flags (or the driver's default if no flags

> On Nov 16, 2016, at 10:04 PM, Ristow, Warren <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

> On Nov 16, 2016, at 6:22 PM, Ristow, Warren <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

Hi Sanjay, You are right. I tried XL and gcc 4.8.2 for PPC and I also got multiply-and-add operations. I supported my statement on what I read in the gcc man page. -ffast-math is used in clang to set fp-contract to fast (default is standard) and in gcc it activates (among others) the flag -funsafe-math-optimizations whose description includes: "Allow optimizations for floating-point

The potential advantage I was considering would be more accurate cost modeling in the vectorizer, inliner, etc. Like min/max, this is another case where the sum of the IR parts is greater than the actual cost. Beyond that, it seems odd to me that we'd choose the longer IR expression of something that could be represented in a minimal form. I know we make practical concessions in IR based on

Hi all, A question came up in a code review (https://reviews.llvm.org/D72820) about whether or not to allow fast-math flags to be applied to constrained floating point intrinsics (http://llvm.org/docs/LangRef.html#constrained-floating-point-intrinsics). This has come up several times before, but I don't think we've ever made a decision about it. By default, the optimizer assumes that

Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE DROID On Nov 19, 2016 10:26 AM, Sanjay Patel <spatel at rotateright.com<mailto:spatel at rotateright.com>> wrote: > > If I have my FMA intrinsics story straight now (thanks for the explanation, Hal!), I think it raises another question about IR canonicalization (and may affect the proposed revision to IR FMF): No, I think that we specifically

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

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

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.