Re: [[ARM/AArch64][testsuite] 03/36] Add vmax, vmin, vhadd, vhsub and vrhadd tests.

[Christophe Lyon <christophe.lyon@linaro.org>]

On 23 January 2015 at 11:18, Tejas Belagod <tejas.belagod@arm.com> wrote:
> On 22/01/15 21:31, Christophe Lyon wrote:
>>
>> On 22 January 2015 at 16:22, Tejas Belagod <tejas.belagod@arm.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 22/01/15 14:28, Christophe Lyon wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 22 January 2015 at 12:19, Tejas Belagod <tejas.belagod@arm.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 21/01/15 15:07, Christophe Lyon wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 19 January 2015 at 17:54, Marcus Shawcroft
>>>>>> <marcus.shawcroft@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 19 January 2015 at 15:43, Christophe Lyon
>>>>>>> <christophe.lyon@linaro.org>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 19 January 2015 at 14:29, Marcus Shawcroft
>>>>>>>> <marcus.shawcroft@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 16 January 2015 at 17:52, Christophe Lyon
>>>>>>>>> <christophe.lyon@linaro.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> OK provided, as per the previous couple, that we don;t regression
>>>>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>>> introduce new fails on aarch64[_be] or aarch32.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This patch shows failures on aarch64 and aarch64_be for vmax and
>>>>>>>>>> vmin
>>>>>>>>>> when the input is -NaN.
>>>>>>>>>> It's a corner case, and my reading of the ARM ARM is that the
>>>>>>>>>> result
>>>>>>>>>> should the same as on aarch32.
>>>>>>>>>> I haven't had time to look at it in more details though.
>>>>>>>>>> So, not OK?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> They should have the same behaviour in aarch32 and aarch64. Did you
>>>>>>>>> test on HW or a model?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I ran the tests on qemu for aarch32 and aarch64-linux, and on the
>>>>>>>> foundation model for aarch64*-elf.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Leave this one out until we understand why it fails. /Marcus
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've looked at this a bit more.
>>>>>> We have
>>>>>> fmax    v0.4s, v0.4s, v1.4s
>>>>>> where v0 is a vector of -NaN (0xffc00000) and v1 is a vector of 1.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The output is still -NaN (0xffc00000), while the test expects
>>>>>> defaultNaN (0x7fc00000).
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> In the AArch32 execution state, Advanced SIMD FP arithmetic always uses
>>>>> the
>>>>> DefaultNaN setting regardless of the DN-bit value in the FPSCR. In
>>>>> AArch64
>>>>> execution state, result of Advanced SIMD FP arithmetic operations
>>>>> depend
>>>>> on
>>>>> the value of the DN-bit i.e. either propagate the input NaN or generate
>>>>> DefaultNaN depending on the value of DN.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Maybe I'm using an outdated doc. On page 2282 of ARMv8 ARM rev C, I
>>>> can see only the latter (no diff between aarch32 and aarch64 in
>>>> FPProcessNan pseudo-code)
>>>>
>>>
>>> If you see pg. 4005 in the same doc(rev C), you'll see the FPSCR spec -
>>> under DN:
>>>
>>> "The value of this bit only controls scalar floating-point arithmetic.
>>> Advanced SIMD arithmetic always uses the Default NaN setting, regardless
>>> of
>>> the value of the DN bit."
>>>
>>> Also on page 3180 for the description of VMAX(vector FP), it says:
>>> "
>>> *  max(+0.0, -0.0) = +0.0
>>> * If any input is a NaN, the corresponding result element is the default
>>> NaN.
>>> "
>>>
>> Oops I was looking at FMAX (vector) pg 936.
>>
>>> The pseudocode for FPMax () on pg. 3180 passes StandardFPSCRValue() to
>>> FPMax() which is on pg. 2285
>>>
>>> // StandardFPSCRValue()
>>> // ====================
>>> FPCRType StandardFPSCRValue()
>>> return ‘00000’ : FPSCR.AHP : ‘11000000000000000000000000’
>>>
>>> Here bit-25(FPSCR.DN) is set to 1.
>>>
>>
>> So, we should get defaultNaN too on aarch64, and no need to try to
>> force DN to 1 in gdb?
>>
>> What can be wrong?
>>
>
> On pg 3180, I see VMAX(FPSIMD) for A32/T32, not A64. I hope we're reading
> the same document.
>
> Regardless of the page number, if you see the pseudocode for VMAX(FPSIMD)
> for AArch32, StandardFPSCRValue() (i.e. DN = 1) is passed to FPMax() which
> means generate DefaultNaN() regardless.
>
> OTOH, on pg 936, you have FMAX(vector) for A64 where FPMax() in the
> pseudocode gets just FPCR.
>
>
Ok, that was my initial understanding but our discussion confused me.

And that's why I tried to force DN = 1 in gdb before single-stepping over
fmax    v0.4s, v0.4s, v1.4s

but it changed nothing :-(
Hence my question about a gdb possible bug or misuse.

I'll try modifying the test to have it force DN=1.

> Thanks,
> Tejas.
>
>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Tejas.
>>>
>>>
>>>>> If you're running your test in the AArch64 execution state, you'd want
>>>>> to
>>>>> define the DN bit and modify the expected results accordingly or have
>>>>> the
>>>>> test poll at runtime what the DN-bit is set to and check expected
>>>>> results
>>>>> dynamically.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Makes sense, I hadn't noticed the different aarch64 spec here.
>>>>
>>>>> I think the test already has expected behaviour for AArch32 execution
>>>>> state
>>>>> by expecting DefaultNaN regardless.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes.
>>>>
>>>>>> I have executed the test under GDB on AArch64 HW, and noticed that
>>>>>> fpcr
>>>>>> was 0.
>>>>>> I forced it to have DN==1:
>>>>>> set $fpcr=0x1000000
>>>>>> but this didn't change the result.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Does setting fpcr.dn under gdb actually work?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It should. Possibly a bug, patches welcome :-).
>>>>>
>>>> :-)
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>