public inbox for glibc-bugs@sourceware.org help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "newbie-02 at gmx dot de" <sourceware-bugzilla@sourceware.org> To: glibc-bugs@sourceware.org Subject: [Bug libc/31240] New: LONG DOUBLE: denormals: assigning a constant factor 100 slow, Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2024 15:11:13 +0000 [thread overview] Message-ID: <bug-31240-131@http.sourceware.org/bugzilla/> (raw) https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31240 Bug ID: 31240 Summary: LONG DOUBLE: denormals: assigning a constant factor 100 slow, Product: glibc Version: unspecified Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P2 Component: libc Assignee: unassigned at sourceware dot org Reporter: newbie-02 at gmx dot de CC: drepper.fsp at gmail dot com Target Milestone: --- Created attachment 15297 --> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=15297&action=edit snippet demonstrating slow evaluation of denormal constants See subject, assigning 3.3E-4932 to a variable takes 100 times longer than 3.4E-4932. Boiled it into the attached file which here produces the following output: ```` Assigning a long double denormal constant to a long double variable seems very slow: The '+ ( argc - 1 )' part is an attempt to block compiler cheating by compile time assigning. First column is the time used for 1000000 iterations. Factor ~100 looks odd to me. 0.231966; 3.6451995318824746025284E-4951; x2l = ( LDBL_MIN_DEN + ( argc - 1 ) ) 0.002198; 3.5000000000000000001381E-4932; x2l = ( 3.5e-4932l + ( argc - 1 ) ) 0.002153; 3.4000000000000000000716E-4932; x2l = ( 3.4e-4932l + ( argc - 1 ) ) 0.002115; 3.3621031431120935062627E-4932; x2l = ( 3.3621031431120935063E-4932l + ( argc - 1 ) ) Note the break here, above are 'normal, below 'denormal' values. 0.209994; 3.3621031431120935058982E-4932; x2l = ( 3.362103143112093506E-4932l + ( argc - 1 ) ) 0.207378; 3.3000000000000000000052E-4932; x2l = ( 3.3e-4932l + ( argc - 1 ) ) 0.205288; 3.1999999999999999999388E-4932; x2l = ( 3.2e-4932l + ( argc - 1 ) ) Not observed without the '+ ( argc - 1 )' part, assume compiler cheating. 0.002090; 3.6451995318824746025284E-4951; x2l = ( LDBL_MIN_DEN ) 0.001863; 3.5000000000000000001381E-4932; x2l = ( 3.5e-4932l ) 0.001814; 3.4000000000000000000716E-4932; x2l = ( 3.4e-4932l ) 0.001865; 3.3621031431120935062627E-4932; x2l = ( 3.3621031431120935063E-4932l ) 0.001811; 3.3621031431120935058982E-4932; x2l = ( 3.362103143112093506E-4932l ) 0.001868; 3.3000000000000000000052E-4932; x2l = ( 3.3e-4932l ) 0.001926; 3.1999999999999999999388E-4932; x2l = ( 3.2e-4932l ) Not observed when assigning long double values around double normal / denormal break. 0.063401; 4.9406564584124654417657E-324; x2l = ( DBL_MIN_DEN + ( argc - 1 ) ) 0.002173; 2.3999999999999999999368E-308; x2l = ( 2.4e-308l + ( argc - 1 ) ) 0.002116; 2.3000000000000000000299E-308; x2l = ( 2.3e-308l + ( argc - 1 ) ) 0.002124; 2.2250738585072013999772E-308; x2l = ( 2.2250738585072014E-308l + ( argc - 1 ) ) 0.002272; 2.2250738585072009999964E-308; x2l = ( 2.225073858507201E-308l + ( argc - 1 ) ) 0.002590; 2.2000000000000000000024E-308; x2l = ( 2.2e-308l + ( argc - 1 ) ) 0.002082; 2.0999999999999999999749E-308; x2l = ( 2.1e-308l + ( argc - 1 ) ) But! affecting evaluation of denormal double constants! Here penalty factor 'only' ~30. 0.062303; 4.9406564584124654417657E-324; x2l = ( DBL_MIN_DEN + ( argc - 1 ) ) 0.002470; 2.4000000000000000788233E-308; x2l = ( 2.4e-308 + ( argc - 1 ) ) 0.002405; 2.2999999999999998902644E-308; x2l = ( 2.3e-308 + ( argc - 1 ) ) 0.002234; 2.2250738585072013830902E-308; x2l = ( 2.2250738585072014E-308 + ( argc - 1 ) ) 0.063479; 2.2250738585072008890246E-308; x2l = ( 2.225073858507201E-308 + ( argc - 1 ) ) 0.062954; 2.2000000000000001957711E-308; x2l = ( 2.2e-308 + ( argc - 1 ) ) 0.062987; 2.1000000000000000072122E-308; x2l = ( 2.1e-308 + ( argc - 1 ) ) No such problem when assigning to double variable. 0.001588; 4.940656458412465442E-324; x2d = ( DBL_MIN_DEN + ( argc - 1 ) ) 0.001528; 2.400000000000000079E-308; x2d = ( 2.4e-308 + ( argc - 1 ) ) 0.001557; 2.299999999999999890E-308; x2d = ( 2.3e-308 + ( argc - 1 ) ) 0.001582; 2.225073858507201383E-308; x2d = ( 2.2250738585072014E-308 + ( argc - 1 ) ) 0.001528; 2.225073858507200889E-308; x2d = ( 2.225073858507201E-308 + ( argc - 1 ) ) 0.001544; 2.200000000000000196E-308; x2d = ( 2.2e-308 + ( argc - 1 ) ) 0.001483; 2.100000000000000007E-308; x2d = ( 2.1e-308 + ( argc - 1 ) ) Can't tell if hardware, compiler, library whatever. Assume evaluation of constant when read. ```` -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
next reply other threads:[~2024-01-12 15:11 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2024-01-12 15:11 newbie-02 at gmx dot de [this message] 2024-01-12 19:30 ` [Bug libc/31240] " adhemerval.zanella at linaro dot org 2024-01-12 23:51 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
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=bug-31240-131@http.sourceware.org/bugzilla/ \ --to=sourceware-bugzilla@sourceware.org \ --cc=glibc-bugs@sourceware.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: linkBe 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).