From: Janne Blomqvist <blomqvist.janne@gmail.com>
To: "Thomas König" <tk@tkoenig.net>
Cc: Kyrill Tkachov <kyrylo.tkachov@foss.arm.com>,
Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de>,
Richard Biener <richard.guenther@gmail.com>,
"fortran@gcc.gnu.org" <fortran@gcc.gnu.org>,
GCC Patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH][Fortran][v2] Use MIN/MAX_EXPR for min/max intrinsics
Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2018 12:05:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAO9iq9FQ78W+EchmsM-19EsSY01+u0H8N+RTrz5mTv3TPOuBtA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAO9iq9G7rSWCFMkTam2uOAsuW9WBGJL607C4FtAeXqVh7th-Pw@mail.gmail.com>
On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 6:10 PM, Janne Blomqvist <blomqvist.janne@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 4:26 PM, Thomas König <tk@tkoenig.net> wrote:
>
>> Hi Kyrlll,
>>
>> > Am 18.07.2018 um 13:17 schrieb Kyrill Tkachov <
>> kyrylo.tkachov@foss.arm.com>:
>> >
>> > Thomas, Janne, would this relaxation of NaN handling be acceptable
>> given the benefits
>> > mentioned above? If so, what would be the recommended adjustment to the
>> nan_1.f90 test?
>>
>> I would be a bit careful about changing behavior in such a major way.
>> What would the results with NaN and infinity then be, with or without
>> optimization? Would the results be consistent with min(nan,num) vs
>> min(num,nan)? Would they be consistent with the new IEEE standard?
>>
>
> AFAIU, MIN/MAX_EXPR do the right thing when comparing a normal number with
> Inf. For NaN the result is undefined, and you might indeed have
>
> min(a, NaN) = a
> min(NaN, a) = NaN
>
> where "a" is a normal number.
>
> (I think that happens at least on x86 if MIN_EXPR is expanded to
> minsd/minpd.
>
> Apparently what the proper result for min(a, NaN) should be is contentious
> enough that minnum was removed from the upcoming IEEE 754 revision, and new
> operations AFAICS have the semantics
>
> minimum(a, NaN) = minimum(NaN, a) = NaN
> minimumNumber(a, NaN) = minimumNumber(NaN, a) = a
>
> That is minimumNumber corresponds to minnum in IEEE 754-2008 and fmin* in
> C, and to the current behavior of gfortran.
>
>
>> In general, I think that min(nan,num) should be nan and that our current
>> behavior is not the best.
>>
>
> There was some extensive discussion of that in the Julia bug report I
> linked to in an earlier message, and they came to the same conclusion and
> changed their behavior.
>
>
>> Does anybody have dats points on how this is handled by other compilers?
>>
>
> The only other compiler I have access to at the moment is ifort (and not
> the latest version), but maybe somebody has access to a wider variety?
>
>
>> Oh, and if anything is changed, then compile and runtime behavior should
>> always be the same.
>>
>
> Well, IFF we place some weight on the runtime behavior being particularly
> sensible wrt NaN's, which it wouldn't be if we just use a plain
> MIN/MAX_EXPR. Is it worth taking a performance hit for, though? In
> particular, if other compilers are inconsistent, we might as well do
> whatever is fastest.
>
>
> --
> Janne Blomqvist
>
The testcase below (the functions in a separate file to prevent
inter-procedural and constant propagation optimizations):
program main
implicit none
real :: a, b = 1., mymax, mydiv
external mymax, mydiv
a = mydiv(0., 0.)
print *, 'Verify that the following value is a NaN: ', a
print *, 'max(', a, ',', b, ') = ', mymax(a, b)
print *, 'max(', b, ',', a, ') = ', mymax(b, a)
a = mydiv(1., 0.)
print *, 'Verify that the following is a Inf: ', a
print *, 'max(', a, ',', b, ') = ', mymax(a, b)
print *, 'max(', b, ',', a, ') = ', mymax(b, a)
end program main
real function mymax(a, b)
implicit none
real :: a, b
mymax = max(a, b)
end function mymax
real function mydiv(a, b)
implicit none
real :: a, b
mydiv = a/b
end function mydiv
With gfortran 6.2 (didn't bother to check other versions as it shouldn't
have changed lately) and Intel Fortran 17.0.1 I get the following:
% gfortran main.f90 my.f90 && ./a.out
Verify that the following value is a NaN: NaN
max( NaN , 1.00000000 ) = 1.00000000
max( 1.00000000 , NaN ) = 1.00000000
Verify that the following is a Inf: Infinity
max( Infinity , 1.00000000 ) = Infinity
max( 1.00000000 , Infinity ) = Infinity
% gfortran -ffast-math main.f90 my.f90 && ./a.out
Verify that the following value is a NaN: NaN
max( NaN , 1.00000000 ) = NaN
max( 1.00000000 , NaN ) = 1.00000000
Verify that the following is a Inf: Infinity
max( Infinity , 1.00000000 ) = Infinity
max( 1.00000000 , Infinity ) = Infinity
% ifort main.f90 my.f90 && ./a.out
Verify that the following value is a NaN: NaN
max( NaN , 1.000000 ) = 1.000000
max( 1.000000 , NaN ) = NaN
Verify that the following is a Inf: Infinity
max( Infinity , 1.000000 ) = Infinity
max( 1.000000 , Infinity ) = Infinity
% ifort -fp-model strict main.f90 my.f90 && ./a.out
Verify that the following value is a NaN: NaN
max( NaN , 1.000000 ) = 1.000000
max( 1.000000 , NaN ) = NaN
Verify that the following is a Inf: Infinity
max( Infinity , 1.000000 ) = Infinity
max( 1.000000 , Infinity ) = Infinity
For brevity I have omitted tests with various -O[N] optimization levels,
which didn't affect the results on either gfortran nor ifort.
This suggests that ifort does the equivalent of MAX_EXPR unconditionally.
Does anyone have access to other compilers, what results do they give?
--
Janne Blomqvist
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-08-06 12:05 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-07-17 12:35 [PATCH][Fortran] Use MIN/MAX_EXPR for intrinsics or __builtin_fmin/max when appropriate Kyrill Tkachov
2018-07-17 13:27 ` Richard Biener
2018-07-17 13:46 ` Kyrill Tkachov
2018-07-17 15:37 ` Thomas Koenig
2018-07-17 16:16 ` Kyrill Tkachov
2018-07-17 17:42 ` Thomas Koenig
2018-07-17 20:06 ` Janne Blomqvist
2018-07-17 20:35 ` Janne Blomqvist
2018-07-18 11:17 ` [PATCH][Fortran][v2] Use MIN/MAX_EXPR for min/max intrinsics Kyrill Tkachov
2018-07-18 13:26 ` Thomas König
2018-07-18 14:03 ` Kyrill Tkachov
2018-07-18 14:55 ` Janne Blomqvist
2018-07-18 15:28 ` Richard Sandiford
2018-07-18 16:04 ` Kyrill Tkachov
2018-07-18 15:10 ` Janne Blomqvist
2018-07-26 20:36 ` Joseph Myers
2018-08-06 12:05 ` Janne Blomqvist [this message]
2018-07-18 9:44 ` [PATCH][Fortran] Use MIN/MAX_EXPR for intrinsics or __builtin_fmin/max when appropriate Richard Biener
2018-07-18 9:50 ` Kyrill Tkachov
2018-07-18 10:06 ` Richard Biener
2018-07-18 11:45 ` [PATCH]Use " Richard Sandiford
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=CAO9iq9FQ78W+EchmsM-19EsSY01+u0H8N+RTrz5mTv3TPOuBtA@mail.gmail.com \
--to=blomqvist.janne@gmail.com \
--cc=fortran@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=kyrylo.tkachov@foss.arm.com \
--cc=richard.guenther@gmail.com \
--cc=tk@tkoenig.net \
--cc=tkoenig@netcologne.de \
/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).