* [PATCH] S390: Do not set FE_INEXACT with feraiseexcept (FE_OWERFLOW|FE_UNDERFLOW).
@ 2016-08-18 14:14 Stefan Liebler
2016-08-18 15:59 ` Joseph Myers
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Stefan Liebler @ 2016-08-18 14:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: libc-alpha
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1009 bytes --]
Hi,
on s390 feraiseexcept (FE_OVERFLOW|FE_UNDERFLOW) sets FE_INEXACT, too.
This patch uses z196 zarch load rounded instruction which can suppress
FE_INEXACT exception.
If gcc has no z196 support in used configuration, FE_INEXACT flag is
cleared if it was set before.
The gcc support is tested in a new configure-check.
A comment in fsetexcptflg.c is corrected as new exceptions are not
executed with the next floating-point instruction if fpc is set with
_FPU_SETCW macro. It seems the comment was copied e.g. from
sysdeps/x86_64/fpu/fsetexcptflg.c file.
Ok to commit?
Bye
Stefan
ChangeLog:
* config.h.in: (HAVE_S390_MIN_Z196_ZARCH_ASM_SUPPORT)
New undefine.
* sysdeps/s390/configure.ac: Add test for z196 zarch support.
* sysdeps/s390/configure: Regenerated.
* sysdeps/s390/fpu/fraiseexcpt.c (__feraiseexcept): Use ledbra
instruction for raising over-/underflow if z196 zarch is
supported by default or clear inexact flag.
* sysdeps/s390/fpu/fsetexcptflg.c (fesetexceptflag):
Correct comment.
[-- Attachment #2: 20160818_feraiseexception.patch --]
[-- Type: text/x-patch, Size: 7690 bytes --]
commit 800ee0a868b9461a614c96bab965664668f4af68
Author: Stefan Liebler <stli@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Thu Aug 18 15:51:47 2016 +0200
S390: Do not set FE_INEXACT with feraiseexcept (FE_OWERFLOW|FE_UNDERFLOW).
On s390 feraiseexcept (FE_OVERFLOW|FE_UNDERFLOW) sets FE_INEXACT, too.
This patch uses z196 zarch load rounded instruction which can suppress
FE_INEXACT exception.
If gcc has no z196 support in used configuration, FE_INEXACT flag is
cleared if it was set before.
The gcc support is tested in a new configure-check.
A comment in fsetexcptflg.c is corrected as new exceptions are not
executed with the next floating-point instruction if fpc is set with
_FPU_SETCW macro. It seems the comment was copied e.g. from
sysdeps/x86_64/fpu/fsetexcptflg.c file.
ChangeLog:
* config.h.in: (HAVE_S390_MIN_Z196_ZARCH_ASM_SUPPORT)
New undefine.
* sysdeps/s390/configure.ac: Add test for z196 zarch support.
* sysdeps/s390/configure: Regenerated.
* sysdeps/s390/fpu/fraiseexcpt.c (__feraiseexcept): Use ledbra
instruction for raising over-/underflow if z196 zarch is supported
by default or clear inexact flag.
* sysdeps/s390/fpu/fsetexcptflg.c (fesetexceptflag):
Correct comment.
diff --git a/config.h.in b/config.h.in
index 856ef6a..8cd08b0 100644
--- a/config.h.in
+++ b/config.h.in
@@ -70,6 +70,9 @@
/* Define if assembler supports AVX512DQ. */
#undef HAVE_AVX512DQ_ASM_SUPPORT
+/* Define if assembler supports z196 zarch instructions as default on S390. */
+#undef HAVE_S390_MIN_Z196_ZARCH_ASM_SUPPORT
+
/* Define if assembler supports vector instructions on S390. */
#undef HAVE_S390_VX_ASM_SUPPORT
diff --git a/sysdeps/s390/configure b/sysdeps/s390/configure
index c9fb69c..347ac28 100644
--- a/sysdeps/s390/configure
+++ b/sysdeps/s390/configure
@@ -177,5 +177,41 @@ then
fi
+{ $as_echo "$as_me:${as_lineno-$LINENO}: checking for S390 z196 zarch instruction support as default" >&5
+$as_echo_n "checking for S390 z196 zarch instruction support as default... " >&6; }
+if ${libc_cv_asm_s390_min_z196_zarch+:} false; then :
+ $as_echo_n "(cached) " >&6
+else
+ cat > conftest.c <<\EOF
+float testinsn (double e)
+{
+ float d;
+ __asm__ ("ledbra %0,5,%1,4" : "=f" (d) : "f" (e) );
+ return d;
+}
+EOF
+if { ac_try='${CC-cc} $CFLAGS $CPPFLAGS $LDFLAGS --shared conftest.c
+ -o conftest.o &> /dev/null'
+ { { eval echo "\"\$as_me\":${as_lineno-$LINENO}: \"$ac_try\""; } >&5
+ (eval $ac_try) 2>&5
+ ac_status=$?
+ $as_echo "$as_me:${as_lineno-$LINENO}: \$? = $ac_status" >&5
+ test $ac_status = 0; }; } ;
+then
+ libc_cv_asm_s390_min_z196_zarch=yes
+else
+ libc_cv_asm_s390_min_z196_zarch=no
+fi
+rm -f conftest*
+fi
+{ $as_echo "$as_me:${as_lineno-$LINENO}: result: $libc_cv_asm_s390_min_z196_zarch" >&5
+$as_echo "$libc_cv_asm_s390_min_z196_zarch" >&6; }
+
+if test "$libc_cv_asm_s390_min_z196_zarch" = yes ;
+then
+ $as_echo "#define HAVE_S390_MIN_Z196_ZARCH_ASM_SUPPORT 1" >>confdefs.h
+
+fi
+
test -n "$critic_missing" && as_fn_error $? "
*** $critic_missing" "$LINENO" 5
diff --git a/sysdeps/s390/configure.ac b/sysdeps/s390/configure.ac
index 1db6d84..8a782e7 100644
--- a/sysdeps/s390/configure.ac
+++ b/sysdeps/s390/configure.ac
@@ -86,5 +86,31 @@ then
AC_DEFINE(HAVE_S390_VX_GCC_SUPPORT)
fi
+AC_CACHE_CHECK(for S390 z196 zarch instruction support as default,
+ libc_cv_asm_s390_min_z196_zarch, [dnl
+cat > conftest.c <<\EOF
+float testinsn (double e)
+{
+ float d;
+ __asm__ ("ledbra %0,5,%1,4" : "=f" (d) : "f" (e) );
+ return d;
+}
+EOF
+dnl
+dnl test, if assembler supports S390 z196 zarch instructions as default
+if AC_TRY_COMMAND([${CC-cc} $CFLAGS $CPPFLAGS $LDFLAGS --shared conftest.c
+ -o conftest.o &> /dev/null]) ;
+then
+ libc_cv_asm_s390_min_z196_zarch=yes
+else
+ libc_cv_asm_s390_min_z196_zarch=no
+fi
+rm -f conftest* ])
+
+if test "$libc_cv_asm_s390_min_z196_zarch" = yes ;
+then
+ AC_DEFINE(HAVE_S390_MIN_Z196_ZARCH_ASM_SUPPORT)
+fi
+
test -n "$critic_missing" && AC_MSG_ERROR([
*** $critic_missing])
diff --git a/sysdeps/s390/fpu/fraiseexcpt.c b/sysdeps/s390/fpu/fraiseexcpt.c
index 92a1a7d..612e323 100644
--- a/sysdeps/s390/fpu/fraiseexcpt.c
+++ b/sysdeps/s390/fpu/fraiseexcpt.c
@@ -19,6 +19,7 @@
<http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>. */
#include <fenv_libc.h>
+#include <fpu_control.h>
#include <float.h>
#include <math.h>
@@ -35,6 +36,23 @@ fexceptadd (float d, float e)
__asm__ __volatile__ ("aebr %0,%1" : : "f" (d), "f" (e) );
}
+#ifdef HAVE_S390_MIN_Z196_ZARCH_ASM_SUPPORT
+static __inline__ void
+fexceptround (double e)
+{
+ float d;
+ /* Load rounded from double to float with M3 = round toward 0, M4 = Suppress
+ IEEE-inexact exception.
+ In case of e=0x1p128 and the overflow-mask bit is zero, only the
+ IEEE-overflow flag is set. If overflow-mask bit is one, DXC field is set to
+ 0x20 "IEEE overflow, exact".
+ In case of e=0x1p-150 and the underflow-mask bit is zero, only the
+ IEEE-underflow flag is set. If underflow-mask bit is one, DXC field is set
+ to 0x10 "IEEE underflow, exact".
+ This instruction is available with a zarch machine >= z196. */
+ __asm__ __volatile__ ("ledbra %0,5,%1,4" : "=f" (d) : "f" (e) );
+}
+#endif
int
__feraiseexcept (int excepts)
@@ -54,13 +72,49 @@ __feraiseexcept (int excepts)
/* Next: overflow. */
if (FE_OVERFLOW & excepts)
- /* I don't think we can do the same trick as intel so we will have
- to live with inexact coming also. */
- fexceptadd (FLT_MAX, 1.0e32);
+ {
+#ifdef HAVE_S390_MIN_Z196_ZARCH_ASM_SUPPORT
+ fexceptround (0x1p128);
+#else
+ fexcept_t temp;
+ _FPU_GETCW (temp);
+ /* If overflow-mask bit is zero, both IEEE-overflow and IEEE-inexact flags
+ are set. In this case the IEEE-inexact flag will be cleared afterwards
+ if it wasn't set before. If overflow-mask bit is one, DXC field is set
+ to 0x20 "IEEE overflow, exact". */
+ fexceptadd (0x1p127f, 0x1p127f);
+ if ((temp & (FE_OVERFLOW << FPC_EXCEPTION_MASK_SHIFT
+ | FE_INEXACT << FPC_FLAGS_SHIFT)) == 0)
+ {
+ _FPU_GETCW (temp);
+ temp &= ~(FE_INEXACT << FPC_FLAGS_SHIFT);
+ _FPU_SETCW (temp);
+ }
+#endif
+ }
/* Next: underflow. */
if (FE_UNDERFLOW & excepts)
- fexceptdiv (FLT_MIN, 3.0);
+ {
+#ifdef HAVE_S390_MIN_Z196_ZARCH_ASM_SUPPORT
+ fexceptround (0x1p-150);
+#else
+ fexcept_t temp;
+ _FPU_GETCW (temp);
+ /* If underflow-mask bit is zero, both IEEE-underflow and IEEE-inexact
+ flags are set. In this case the IEEE-inexact flag will be cleared
+ afterwards if it wasn't set before. If underflow-mask bit is one, DXC
+ field is set to 0x10 "IEEE underflow, exact". */
+ fexceptdiv (0x1p-127f, 0x1p127f);
+ if ((temp & (FE_UNDERFLOW << FPC_EXCEPTION_MASK_SHIFT
+ | FE_INEXACT << FPC_FLAGS_SHIFT)) == 0)
+ {
+ _FPU_GETCW (temp);
+ temp &= ~(FE_INEXACT << FPC_FLAGS_SHIFT);
+ _FPU_SETCW (temp);
+ }
+#endif
+ }
/* Last: inexact. */
if (FE_INEXACT & excepts)
diff --git a/sysdeps/s390/fpu/fsetexcptflg.c b/sysdeps/s390/fpu/fsetexcptflg.c
index 25ade85..56a52c6 100644
--- a/sysdeps/s390/fpu/fsetexcptflg.c
+++ b/sysdeps/s390/fpu/fsetexcptflg.c
@@ -45,8 +45,7 @@ fesetexceptflag (const fexcept_t *flagp, int excepts)
& newexcepts;
/* Store the new status word (along with the rest of the environment.
- Possibly new exceptions are set but they won't get executed unless
- the next floating-point instruction. */
+ Possibly new exceptions are set but they won't get executed. */
_FPU_SETCW (temp);
/* Success. */
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] S390: Do not set FE_INEXACT with feraiseexcept (FE_OWERFLOW|FE_UNDERFLOW).
2016-08-18 14:14 [PATCH] S390: Do not set FE_INEXACT with feraiseexcept (FE_OWERFLOW|FE_UNDERFLOW) Stefan Liebler
@ 2016-08-18 15:59 ` Joseph Myers
2016-08-22 7:16 ` Stefan Liebler
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Joseph Myers @ 2016-08-18 15:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Stefan Liebler; +Cc: libc-alpha
On Thu, 18 Aug 2016, Stefan Liebler wrote:
> Hi,
>
> on s390 feraiseexcept (FE_OVERFLOW|FE_UNDERFLOW) sets FE_INEXACT, too.
Note that this is permitted by the standards (whereas implicitly setting
FE_INEXACT is not permitted for fesetexcept, or fesetexceptflag if it
wasn't set in the saved state).
--
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] S390: Do not set FE_INEXACT with feraiseexcept (FE_OWERFLOW|FE_UNDERFLOW).
2016-08-18 15:59 ` Joseph Myers
@ 2016-08-22 7:16 ` Stefan Liebler
2016-08-22 10:59 ` Joseph Myers
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Stefan Liebler @ 2016-08-22 7:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: libc-alpha; +Cc: Joseph S. Myers
On 08/18/2016 05:59 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Aug 2016, Stefan Liebler wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> on s390 feraiseexcept (FE_OVERFLOW|FE_UNDERFLOW) sets FE_INEXACT, too.
>
> Note that this is permitted by the standards (whereas implicitly setting
> FE_INEXACT is not permitted for fesetexcept, or fesetexceptflag if it
> wasn't set in the saved state).
>
Hi Joseph,
fesetexcept and fesetexceptflag are using the _FPU_SETCW macro to set
the flags. They don't implicitly set FE_INEXACT.
For feraiseexcept I think if the z196-round-instruction is available
with used toolchain then it should be used to avoid FE_INEXACT. Then it
is the same behaviour as on intel.
If it is not available feraiseexcept will use the add/div instructions
as before with the FE_INEXACT flag/exception. And the additional
_FPU_GETCW/SETCW usages are avoided.
What's your suggestion for feraiseexcept?
Bye
Stefan
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] S390: Do not set FE_INEXACT with feraiseexcept (FE_OWERFLOW|FE_UNDERFLOW).
2016-08-22 7:16 ` Stefan Liebler
@ 2016-08-22 10:59 ` Joseph Myers
2016-08-23 6:59 ` Stefan Liebler
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Joseph Myers @ 2016-08-22 10:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Stefan Liebler; +Cc: libc-alpha
On Mon, 22 Aug 2016, Stefan Liebler wrote:
> For feraiseexcept I think if the z196-round-instruction is available with used
> toolchain then it should be used to avoid FE_INEXACT. Then it is the same
> behaviour as on intel.
> If it is not available feraiseexcept will use the add/div instructions as
> before with the FE_INEXACT flag/exception. And the additional _FPU_GETCW/SETCW
> usages are avoided.
>
> What's your suggestion for feraiseexcept?
I don't have a suggestion; I was simply observing that extra steps for
this case (such as the x86 code does) are not actually needed to conform
to the standard.
--
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] S390: Do not set FE_INEXACT with feraiseexcept (FE_OWERFLOW|FE_UNDERFLOW).
2016-08-22 10:59 ` Joseph Myers
@ 2016-08-23 6:59 ` Stefan Liebler
2016-08-30 15:11 ` Stefan Liebler
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Stefan Liebler @ 2016-08-23 6:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: libc-alpha
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1275 bytes --]
On 08/22/2016 12:59 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Aug 2016, Stefan Liebler wrote:
>
>> For feraiseexcept I think if the z196-round-instruction is available with used
>> toolchain then it should be used to avoid FE_INEXACT. Then it is the same
>> behaviour as on intel.
>> If it is not available feraiseexcept will use the add/div instructions as
>> before with the FE_INEXACT flag/exception. And the additional _FPU_GETCW/SETCW
>> usages are avoided.
>>
>> What's your suggestion for feraiseexcept?
>
> I don't have a suggestion; I was simply observing that extra steps for
> this case (such as the x86 code does) are not actually needed to conform
> to the standard.
>
Okay. Then I've updated the patch. Now it uses z196-round-instruction if
available to omit FE_INEXACT. If it is not available the old behaviour
is used without clearing FE_INEXACT.
Bye
Stefan
ChangeLog:
* config.h.in: (HAVE_S390_MIN_Z196_ZARCH_ASM_SUPPORT)
New undefine.
* sysdeps/s390/configure.ac: Add test for z196 zarch support.
* sysdeps/s390/configure: Regenerated.
* sysdeps/s390/fpu/fraiseexcpt.c (__feraiseexcept): Use ledbra
instruction for raising over-/underflow if z196 zarch is
supported by default.
* sysdeps/s390/fpu/fsetexcptflg.c (fesetexceptflag):
Correct comment.
[-- Attachment #2: 20160823_feraiseexception.patch --]
[-- Type: text/x-patch, Size: 6837 bytes --]
commit 224637717d53581a081bbb42471c7e91fc137085
Author: Stefan Liebler <stli@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Tue Aug 23 08:44:26 2016 +0200
S390: Do not set FE_INEXACT with feraiseexcept (FE_OWERFLOW|FE_UNDERFLOW).
On s390 feraiseexcept (FE_OVERFLOW|FE_UNDERFLOW) sets FE_INEXACT, too.
This patch uses z196 zarch load rounded instruction which can suppress
FE_INEXACT exception if gcc has z196 support in used configuration.
Otherwise FE_INEXACT flag is set as before. The gcc support is tested
in a new configure-check.
A comment in fsetexcptflg.c is corrected as new exceptions are not
executed with the next floating-point instruction if fpc is set with
_FPU_SETCW macro. It seems the comment was copied e.g. from
sysdeps/x86_64/fpu/fsetexcptflg.c file.
ChangeLog:
* config.h.in: (HAVE_S390_MIN_Z196_ZARCH_ASM_SUPPORT)
New undefine.
* sysdeps/s390/configure.ac: Add test for z196 zarch support.
* sysdeps/s390/configure: Regenerated.
* sysdeps/s390/fpu/fraiseexcpt.c (__feraiseexcept): Use ledbra
instruction for raising over-/underflow if z196 zarch is supported
by default.
* sysdeps/s390/fpu/fsetexcptflg.c (fesetexceptflag):
Correct comment.
diff --git a/config.h.in b/config.h.in
index 856ef6a..8cd08b0 100644
--- a/config.h.in
+++ b/config.h.in
@@ -70,6 +70,9 @@
/* Define if assembler supports AVX512DQ. */
#undef HAVE_AVX512DQ_ASM_SUPPORT
+/* Define if assembler supports z196 zarch instructions as default on S390. */
+#undef HAVE_S390_MIN_Z196_ZARCH_ASM_SUPPORT
+
/* Define if assembler supports vector instructions on S390. */
#undef HAVE_S390_VX_ASM_SUPPORT
diff --git a/sysdeps/s390/configure b/sysdeps/s390/configure
index c9fb69c..347ac28 100644
--- a/sysdeps/s390/configure
+++ b/sysdeps/s390/configure
@@ -177,5 +177,41 @@ then
fi
+{ $as_echo "$as_me:${as_lineno-$LINENO}: checking for S390 z196 zarch instruction support as default" >&5
+$as_echo_n "checking for S390 z196 zarch instruction support as default... " >&6; }
+if ${libc_cv_asm_s390_min_z196_zarch+:} false; then :
+ $as_echo_n "(cached) " >&6
+else
+ cat > conftest.c <<\EOF
+float testinsn (double e)
+{
+ float d;
+ __asm__ ("ledbra %0,5,%1,4" : "=f" (d) : "f" (e) );
+ return d;
+}
+EOF
+if { ac_try='${CC-cc} $CFLAGS $CPPFLAGS $LDFLAGS --shared conftest.c
+ -o conftest.o &> /dev/null'
+ { { eval echo "\"\$as_me\":${as_lineno-$LINENO}: \"$ac_try\""; } >&5
+ (eval $ac_try) 2>&5
+ ac_status=$?
+ $as_echo "$as_me:${as_lineno-$LINENO}: \$? = $ac_status" >&5
+ test $ac_status = 0; }; } ;
+then
+ libc_cv_asm_s390_min_z196_zarch=yes
+else
+ libc_cv_asm_s390_min_z196_zarch=no
+fi
+rm -f conftest*
+fi
+{ $as_echo "$as_me:${as_lineno-$LINENO}: result: $libc_cv_asm_s390_min_z196_zarch" >&5
+$as_echo "$libc_cv_asm_s390_min_z196_zarch" >&6; }
+
+if test "$libc_cv_asm_s390_min_z196_zarch" = yes ;
+then
+ $as_echo "#define HAVE_S390_MIN_Z196_ZARCH_ASM_SUPPORT 1" >>confdefs.h
+
+fi
+
test -n "$critic_missing" && as_fn_error $? "
*** $critic_missing" "$LINENO" 5
diff --git a/sysdeps/s390/configure.ac b/sysdeps/s390/configure.ac
index 1db6d84..8a782e7 100644
--- a/sysdeps/s390/configure.ac
+++ b/sysdeps/s390/configure.ac
@@ -86,5 +86,31 @@ then
AC_DEFINE(HAVE_S390_VX_GCC_SUPPORT)
fi
+AC_CACHE_CHECK(for S390 z196 zarch instruction support as default,
+ libc_cv_asm_s390_min_z196_zarch, [dnl
+cat > conftest.c <<\EOF
+float testinsn (double e)
+{
+ float d;
+ __asm__ ("ledbra %0,5,%1,4" : "=f" (d) : "f" (e) );
+ return d;
+}
+EOF
+dnl
+dnl test, if assembler supports S390 z196 zarch instructions as default
+if AC_TRY_COMMAND([${CC-cc} $CFLAGS $CPPFLAGS $LDFLAGS --shared conftest.c
+ -o conftest.o &> /dev/null]) ;
+then
+ libc_cv_asm_s390_min_z196_zarch=yes
+else
+ libc_cv_asm_s390_min_z196_zarch=no
+fi
+rm -f conftest* ])
+
+if test "$libc_cv_asm_s390_min_z196_zarch" = yes ;
+then
+ AC_DEFINE(HAVE_S390_MIN_Z196_ZARCH_ASM_SUPPORT)
+fi
+
test -n "$critic_missing" && AC_MSG_ERROR([
*** $critic_missing])
diff --git a/sysdeps/s390/fpu/fraiseexcpt.c b/sysdeps/s390/fpu/fraiseexcpt.c
index 92a1a7d..ac6dfe7 100644
--- a/sysdeps/s390/fpu/fraiseexcpt.c
+++ b/sysdeps/s390/fpu/fraiseexcpt.c
@@ -35,6 +35,23 @@ fexceptadd (float d, float e)
__asm__ __volatile__ ("aebr %0,%1" : : "f" (d), "f" (e) );
}
+#ifdef HAVE_S390_MIN_Z196_ZARCH_ASM_SUPPORT
+static __inline__ void
+fexceptround (double e)
+{
+ float d;
+ /* Load rounded from double to float with M3 = round toward 0, M4 = Suppress
+ IEEE-inexact exception.
+ In case of e=0x1p128 and the overflow-mask bit is zero, only the
+ IEEE-overflow flag is set. If overflow-mask bit is one, DXC field is set to
+ 0x20 "IEEE overflow, exact".
+ In case of e=0x1p-150 and the underflow-mask bit is zero, only the
+ IEEE-underflow flag is set. If underflow-mask bit is one, DXC field is set
+ to 0x10 "IEEE underflow, exact".
+ This instruction is available with a zarch machine >= z196. */
+ __asm__ __volatile__ ("ledbra %0,5,%1,4" : "=f" (d) : "f" (e) );
+}
+#endif
int
__feraiseexcept (int excepts)
@@ -54,13 +71,29 @@ __feraiseexcept (int excepts)
/* Next: overflow. */
if (FE_OVERFLOW & excepts)
- /* I don't think we can do the same trick as intel so we will have
- to live with inexact coming also. */
- fexceptadd (FLT_MAX, 1.0e32);
+ {
+#ifdef HAVE_S390_MIN_Z196_ZARCH_ASM_SUPPORT
+ fexceptround (0x1p128);
+#else
+ /* If overflow-mask bit is zero, both IEEE-overflow and IEEE-inexact flags
+ are set. If overflow-mask bit is one, DXC field is set to 0x2C "IEEE
+ overflow, inexact and incremented". */
+ fexceptadd (FLT_MAX, 1.0e32);
+#endif
+ }
/* Next: underflow. */
if (FE_UNDERFLOW & excepts)
- fexceptdiv (FLT_MIN, 3.0);
+ {
+#ifdef HAVE_S390_MIN_Z196_ZARCH_ASM_SUPPORT
+ fexceptround (0x1p-150);
+#else
+ /* If underflow-mask bit is zero, both IEEE-underflow and IEEE-inexact
+ flags are set. If underflow-mask bit is one, DXC field is set to 0x1C
+ "IEEE underflow, inexact and incremented". */
+ fexceptdiv (FLT_MIN, 3.0);
+#endif
+ }
/* Last: inexact. */
if (FE_INEXACT & excepts)
diff --git a/sysdeps/s390/fpu/fsetexcptflg.c b/sysdeps/s390/fpu/fsetexcptflg.c
index 25ade85..56a52c6 100644
--- a/sysdeps/s390/fpu/fsetexcptflg.c
+++ b/sysdeps/s390/fpu/fsetexcptflg.c
@@ -45,8 +45,7 @@ fesetexceptflag (const fexcept_t *flagp, int excepts)
& newexcepts;
/* Store the new status word (along with the rest of the environment.
- Possibly new exceptions are set but they won't get executed unless
- the next floating-point instruction. */
+ Possibly new exceptions are set but they won't get executed. */
_FPU_SETCW (temp);
/* Success. */
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] S390: Do not set FE_INEXACT with feraiseexcept (FE_OWERFLOW|FE_UNDERFLOW).
2016-08-23 6:59 ` Stefan Liebler
@ 2016-08-30 15:11 ` Stefan Liebler
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Stefan Liebler @ 2016-08-30 15:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: libc-alpha
On 08/23/2016 08:58 AM, Stefan Liebler wrote:
> On 08/22/2016 12:59 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
>> On Mon, 22 Aug 2016, Stefan Liebler wrote:
>>
>>> For feraiseexcept I think if the z196-round-instruction is available
>>> with used
>>> toolchain then it should be used to avoid FE_INEXACT. Then it is the
>>> same
>>> behaviour as on intel.
>>> If it is not available feraiseexcept will use the add/div
>>> instructions as
>>> before with the FE_INEXACT flag/exception. And the additional
>>> _FPU_GETCW/SETCW
>>> usages are avoided.
>>>
>>> What's your suggestion for feraiseexcept?
>>
>> I don't have a suggestion; I was simply observing that extra steps for
>> this case (such as the x86 code does) are not actually needed to conform
>> to the standard.
>>
> Okay. Then I've updated the patch. Now it uses z196-round-instruction if
> available to omit FE_INEXACT. If it is not available the old behaviour
> is used without clearing FE_INEXACT.
>
If there is no objection, I'll commit this patch tomorrow.
> Bye
> Stefan
>
> ChangeLog:
>
> * config.h.in: (HAVE_S390_MIN_Z196_ZARCH_ASM_SUPPORT)
> New undefine.
> * sysdeps/s390/configure.ac: Add test for z196 zarch support.
> * sysdeps/s390/configure: Regenerated.
> * sysdeps/s390/fpu/fraiseexcpt.c (__feraiseexcept): Use ledbra
> instruction for raising over-/underflow if z196 zarch is
> supported by default.
> * sysdeps/s390/fpu/fsetexcptflg.c (fesetexceptflag):
> Correct comment.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2016-08-30 15:11 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2016-08-18 14:14 [PATCH] S390: Do not set FE_INEXACT with feraiseexcept (FE_OWERFLOW|FE_UNDERFLOW) Stefan Liebler
2016-08-18 15:59 ` Joseph Myers
2016-08-22 7:16 ` Stefan Liebler
2016-08-22 10:59 ` Joseph Myers
2016-08-23 6:59 ` Stefan Liebler
2016-08-30 15:11 ` Stefan Liebler
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).