public inbox for gcc@gcc.gnu.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com>
To: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Concerns regarding the -ffp-contract=fast default
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2023 18:48:35 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <87r0n01z18.fsf@oldenburg3.str.redhat.com> (raw)

While rebuilding CentOS Stream with -march=x86-64-v3, I rediscovered
several packages had test suite failures because x86-64 suddenly gained
FMA support.  I say “rediscovered” because these issues were already
visible on other architectures with FMA.

So far, our package/architecture maintainers had just disabled test
suites or had built the package with -fp-contract=off because the
failures did not reproduce on x86-64.  I'm not sure if this is the right
course of action.

GCC contraction behavior is rather inconsistent.  It does not contract x
+ x - x without -ffast-math, for example, although I believe it would be
permissible under the rules that enable FMA contraction.  This whole
thing looks suspiciously like a quick hack to get a performance
improvement from FMA instructions (sorry).

I know that GCC 14 has -fp-contract=standard.  Would it make sense to
switch the default to that?  If it fixes those package test suites, it
probably has an observable performance impact. 8-/

Thanks,
Florian


             reply	other threads:[~2023-09-14 16:48 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2023-09-14 16:48 Florian Weimer [this message]
2023-09-14 17:09 ` Alexander Monakov
2023-09-18  7:50   ` Alexander Monakov
2023-09-18  8:06     ` Richard Biener
2023-09-18 10:10       ` Florian Weimer
2023-09-18 10:37         ` Richard Biener
2023-09-18 11:37           ` Florian Weimer
2023-09-18 11:12         ` Alexander Monakov
2023-09-18 11:34           ` Florian Weimer
2023-09-18 11:55             ` Alexander Monakov
2023-09-18 16:41               ` Florian Weimer
2023-09-18 17:31                 ` Alexander Monakov
2023-09-18 17:39                   ` Joseph Myers
2023-09-18 11:26       ` Martin Uecker
2023-09-18 11:32         ` Jakub Jelinek
2023-09-18 11:43           ` Alexander Monakov
2023-09-18 12:13             ` Martin Uecker
2023-09-18 15:38               ` Alexander Monakov

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=87r0n01z18.fsf@oldenburg3.str.redhat.com \
    --to=fweimer@redhat.com \
    --cc=gcc@gcc.gnu.org \
    /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).