From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.133.124]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C77383858C1F for ; Fri, 10 Mar 2023 10:29:43 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org C77383858C1F Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1678444183; h=from:from:reply-to:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type:in-reply-to:in-reply-to: references:references; bh=ike3iRZY3ycE/7Y3UVwWFqP7gwPfKXtY9IPP6nbMkJk=; b=OsBcHPWW8e6mjHejM7VFkRHP88cxmbauQZENKNXmndhHE0FCIdMSjiqkDSASqGKkqcyjxe teK/IP10mDyjrPDdfehtaeEx15pm+a/CGvQQevMDx5Nyv85pQq3gc/cUNhQh7u6axu1FIr 01Ugp4Vx8aEuKYcRk45saLWFvI1Yn04= Received: from mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (mimecast-mx02.redhat.com [66.187.233.88]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-356-6_c3KZ4BPPu1HcxvtpojRA-1; Fri, 10 Mar 2023 05:29:40 -0500 X-MC-Unique: 6_c3KZ4BPPu1HcxvtpojRA-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx08.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.8]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E4D3C185A78B; Fri, 10 Mar 2023 10:29:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from tucnak.zalov.cz (unknown [10.39.192.16]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A769FC15BA0; Fri, 10 Mar 2023 10:29:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from tucnak.zalov.cz (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tucnak.zalov.cz (8.17.1/8.17.1) with ESMTPS id 32AATbP9851358 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 10 Mar 2023 11:29:37 +0100 Received: (from jakub@localhost) by tucnak.zalov.cz (8.17.1/8.17.1/Submit) id 32AATagL851357; Fri, 10 Mar 2023 11:29:36 +0100 Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2023 11:29:36 +0100 From: Jakub Jelinek To: Richard Biener , Aldy Hernandez Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] range-op-float: Fix up -ffinite-math-only range extension and don't extend into infinities [PR109008] Message-ID: Reply-To: Jakub Jelinek References: MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.1 on 10.11.54.8 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE,TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org List-Id: On Fri, Mar 10, 2023 at 08:53:37AM +0000, Richard Biener wrote: > Meh - I wonder if we can avoid all this by making float_widen_lhs_range > friend of frange and simply access m_min/m_max directly and use the > copy-CTOR to copy bounds and nan state ... after all verify_range > will likely fail after you restore flag_finite_math_only ... I'll defer such changes to Aldy. As for verification, I think verify_range will not fail on it, it mainly checks whether it is normalized (e.g. if minimum is frange_val_min and maximum is frange_val_max and NaNs are possible with both signs (if NaNs are supported) then it is VR_VARYING etc.). It doesn't check if the actual VR_RANGE bounds are smaller or larger than the VR_VARYING bounds, there is just equality check. Of course, behavior of wider than varying ranges is still unexpected in many ways, say the union_ of such a range and VR_VARYING will ICE etc. Now, I guess another possibility for the reverse ops over these wider ranges would be avoid calling fold_range in the reverse ops, but call rv_fold directly or have fold_range variant which would instead of the op1, op2 argument have 2 triplets, op1, op1lb, op1ub, op2, op2lb, op2ub, and it would use those const REAL_VALUE_TYPE &op??b in preference to op?.{lower,upper}_bound () or perhaps normal fold_range be implemented in terms of this extended fold_range. Then we wouldn't need to bother with these non-standard franges... > But OK for the moment. Thanks, committed. Jakub