public inbox for gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Qing Zhao <qing.zhao@oracle.com>
To: Alexander Monakov <amonakov@ispras.ru>
Cc: Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>,
	Andrew Pinski <pinskia@gmail.com>,
	"richard.earnshaw@arm.com" <richard.earnshaw@arm.com>,
	gcc Patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>,
	Richard Sandiford <richard.sandiford@arm.com>
Subject: Re: Should -ffp-contract=off the default on GCC?
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2023 14:33:38 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <7415EE40-0F58-4D0A-8A9E-3ADFDFAC1682@oracle.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <7876a937-2865-7f70-973f-feb08eac0c33@ispras.ru>



> On Mar 22, 2023, at 8:33 AM, Alexander Monakov <amonakov@ispras.ru> wrote:
> 
> 
> On Mon, 20 Mar 2023, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches wrote:
> 
>> On Mon, Mar 20, 2023 at 10:05:57PM +0000, Qing Zhao via Gcc-patches wrote:
>>> My question: is the above section the place in C standard “explicitly allows contractions”? If not, where it is in C standard?
>> 
>> http://port70.net/%7Ensz/c/c99/n1256.html#6.5p8
>> http://port70.net/%7Ensz/c/c99/n1256.html#note78
>> http://port70.net/%7Ensz/c/c99/n1256.html#F.6
> 
> C only allows contractions within expressions, not across statements (i.e.
> either -ffp-contract=on or -ffp-contract=off would be compliant, but not
> our default -ffp-contract=fast).

Oh, thanks for the info.

Just read the documentation of -fp-contract=style again: -:)

"
-ffp-contract=style
-ffp-contract=off disables floating-point expression contraction. -ffp-contract=fast enables floating-point expression contraction such as forming of fused multiply-add operations if the target has native support for them. -ffp-contract=on enables floating-point expression contraction if allowed by the language standard. This is currently not implemented and treated equal to -ffp-contract=off.

The default is -ffp-contract=fast.”

I was a little confused about the difference between -ffp-contract=fast and -ffp-contract=on previously,  now I understand.  

So, looks like that it's -ffp-contract=on that is compliant with C standard, but not -ffp-contract=fast?  (However, my understanding from the above doc and also from the GCC source code is, currently, -ffp-contract=on is not implemented and is equal to -fp-contract=off).

Therefore, the default value of -fp-contract=fast is NOT compliant with the language standard? 

Do I miss anything here?

> 
> Unrestricted contraction across statements together with other optimizations
> gives rise to difficult-to-debug issues such as PR 106902.

Just read this bug’s comments, yes, I agree.

Qing
> 
> Alexander


  reply	other threads:[~2023-03-22 14:37 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 32+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2023-03-16 16:24 Qing Zhao
2023-03-16 16:31 ` Andrew Pinski
2023-03-16 16:38   ` Qing Zhao
2023-03-16 16:53     ` Jakub Jelinek
2023-03-16 18:40       ` Qing Zhao
2023-03-20 22:05       ` Qing Zhao
2023-03-20 22:25         ` Jakub Jelinek
2023-03-21 12:49           ` Qing Zhao
2023-03-21 15:01           ` Qing Zhao
2023-03-21 16:56             ` Paul Koning
2023-03-21 17:00               ` Qing Zhao
2023-03-21 17:59                 ` Jeff Law
2023-03-21 18:03                   ` Paul Koning
2023-03-21 18:55                     ` Toon Moene
2023-03-21 18:12                   ` Alexander Monakov
2023-03-21 18:18                     ` Jeff Law
2023-03-22 10:13                       ` Richard Biener
2023-03-22 12:26                         ` Alexander Monakov
2023-03-22 13:57                           ` Richard Biener
2023-03-22 15:52                             ` Qing Zhao
2023-03-24  7:12                               ` Fangrui Song
2023-03-24 19:42                                 ` Andrew Pinski
2023-03-31 16:31                                   ` Qing Zhao
2023-03-21 19:01                   ` Qing Zhao
2023-03-21 19:12                     ` Jakub Jelinek
2023-03-21 23:28                       ` Jeff Law
2023-03-21 23:31                         ` Jakub Jelinek
2023-03-21 19:51                     ` Jeff Law
2023-03-21 21:08                       ` Qing Zhao
2023-03-22 12:33           ` Alexander Monakov
2023-03-22 14:33             ` Qing Zhao [this message]
2023-03-27  9:03 Zeson

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=7415EE40-0F58-4D0A-8A9E-3ADFDFAC1682@oracle.com \
    --to=qing.zhao@oracle.com \
    --cc=amonakov@ispras.ru \
    --cc=gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org \
    --cc=jakub@redhat.com \
    --cc=pinskia@gmail.com \
    --cc=richard.earnshaw@arm.com \
    --cc=richard.sandiford@arm.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).