[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200109210003.GO23985@port70.net>
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2020 22:00:06 +0100
From: Szabolcs Nagy <nsz@...t70.net>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] math: move i386 sqrtf to C
* Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org> [2020-01-09 12:00:02 -0500]:
> On Thu, Jan 09, 2020 at 06:55:11PM +0300, Alexander Monakov wrote:
> > I should have asked earlier, but - is everyone happy with this style of
> > expressing removal of excess precision, or should I use eval_as_float?
> >
> > +{
> > + long double t;
> > [...]
> > + return (float)t;
> > +}
>
> musl requires C99+ with conforming floating point behavior so I think
> this is okay, and I'd prefer to avoid having dependency on libm.h
> machinery that's not strictly needed in src/math/$(ARCH) since it
> increases the cost of changing that machinery (requires looking at
> arch-specific files). My recollection was that eval_as_float is mostly
> an artifact of nsz's math functions supporting and being compatible
> with somewhat non-conforming compilers.
it's an artifact of glibc using -fexcess-precision=fast,
so the compiler can do clever transformations (without
relying on float_t and double_t), and then they annotate
where the excess precision really has to be dropped
(using inline asm).
i wanted to upstream that code into glibc as well as other
math libraries and c99 standard excess precision handling
is not the default in most environments (e.g. gcc default
-std=gnu* or iso c++) and actually the annotation is rarely
needed in math functions: only exact arithmetic tricks
need it or at return from public api functions (like in
this case) to force a final rounding for side-effects
or for sane call abi.
so for me it made sense to add explicit annotations which
document where this issue is really relevant and allows
using the code in more environments by just redefining
the eval_as_float etc calls. (on systems where this is
relevant results can be different compared to other targets
anyway, so allowing more variance depending on different
excess-precision settings is not that big deal.)
about dropping excess precision at return:
c99 required cast at return, but that was considered to be
a bug so in c11 it's no longer required: return now must
round. of course in non-standard mode return continues to
keep excess precision, which seems to require to always
annotate returns, but in most math functions all relevant
fenv side-effects of the final rounding would need special
handling anyway to set errno (assuming you still care about
errno: glibc does so my code also cares about it), so
overflow etc can't happen in the normal return paths, all
such cases are directed to special code that needs special
annotations anyway, so return annotation rarely comes up
(other than with correctly rounded functions like sqrt).
>
> If we want to ensure correct rounding (important for sqrt[f]) even on
> broken compilers (some ppl use gcc 3.x, and pcc may be broken too?)
> perhaps we should just do the store from asm too?
that would be a bit safer, but then correct compiler would
store twice i think. it's hard to get excited about this
issue: it only matters on m68k and i386 which are not the
main targets for new float code (and old code had to deal
with this and bigger brokenness already).
>
> Note that eval_as_float only helps if -ffloat-store is used, which is
> a nasty hack and also nonconforming, arguably worse than the behavior
> without it, so we should probably drop use of that as a fallback, and
> use fp_barrier[f] instead if needed.
i think -ffloat-store almost always drops excess precision
including returns and assignments, so with that no
annotation is needed. but yes the way the annotation is
defined now is not useful against broken compilers or
non-standard excess precision setting, in glibc the
annotation is defined differently (with inline asm).
btw, i'm not against the cast, but in my optimized-routines
code i will keep using my annotations.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
