public inbox for
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Richard Biener <>
To: Marc Glisse <>
Cc: GCC Patches <>
Subject: Re: builtin fenv functions
Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 08:46:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <>

On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 12:09 AM, Marc Glisse <> wrote:
> On Fri, 26 May 2017, Richard Biener wrote:
>>>>> Similarly, I
>>>>> don't see div as a builtin in that file, only FILE* has special code,
>>>>> but
>>>>> that doesn't seem worth the trouble here. So I am only declaring the 5
>>>>> "simple" functions, with minimal properties: leaf, nothrow, and for
>>>>> fegetround pure (glibc already declares it that way). We can then
>>>>> discuss
>>>>> the safety of future optimizations on a case by case basis.
>>>> +DEF_C99_BUILTIN        (BUILT_IN_FERAISEEXCEPT, "feraiseexcept",
>>>> I think feraiseexcept shouldn't be nothrow?
>>> glibc marks it as nothrow. I can remove the nothrow flag for now, for
>>> safety. It may trap, but it does not throw a C++ exception AFAIU.
>> Also with -fnon-call-exceptions?
> Hmm, maybe on windows where trap handlers turn into system exceptions which
> are handled like C++ exceptions... I am happy to remove nothrow.

Ok.  I suppose as glibc has it nothrow differing is somewhat pointless
as as soon
as someone includes the fenv.h header it'll get overridden.

>>>> But it may be pure.
>>> It writes to the exception register (aka memory for now), so I would
>>> hardly
>>> call it pure.
>> But it doesn't have to be ordered with control word writes/reads, no?
> Not sure what you mean here. feraiseexcept(FE_DIVBYZERO) is equivalent to
> 1./0., it writes to the exception status flag. Its order with respect to
> fetestexcept must be preserved.

I see.

>>>> Likewise fetestexcept may be pure?
>>> Too unsafe for now, since any FP operation can write to the memory that
>>> fetestexcept reads.
>> Ah...  but then FP operations are not ordered with the builtins anyway,
>> only FP loads/stores would be.
> Since gcc doesn't handle fenv properly, people have been using a number of
> workarounds, in particular with pass-through asm, sometimes volatile,
> occasionally with the "memory" clobber.
> Some of those versions would still work with pure, but the attribute
> increases the likelyhood of breaking some of those uses, and I don't know if
> it would ever help in practice, so I would rather not add it for now.
> fegetround is very different since it can safely swap position with an
> adjacent float operation.
>> After all having builtins is only the first easiest step of properly
>> modeling
>> dependences between FP ops and the FP control/exception registers.
> Yes, I didn't expect adding those 5 builtins (modulo the nothrow flag) to be
> controversial...

Surely not.  I'm fine with erring on the conservative side for now.


> --
> Marc Glisse

      reply	other threads:[~2017-05-29  8:39 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-05-26 10:27 Marc Glisse
2017-05-26 10:39 ` Richard Biener
2017-05-26 10:49   ` Marc Glisse
2017-05-26 10:58     ` Richard Biener
2017-05-28 22:26       ` Marc Glisse
2017-05-29  8:46         ` Richard Biener [this message]

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:

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

  git send-email \ \ \ \ \

* 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).