Add own version of the mathematical constants from the upcoming C++20 std::numbers.
Details
Diff Detail
- Repository
- rG LLVM Github Monorepo
Event Timeline
llvm/lib/CodeGen/SelectionDAG/SelectionDAGBuilder.cpp | ||
---|---|---|
5003 | I don't like taking a 64-bit constant and truncating it to 32 bits. For most common mathematical constants, it probably produces the right result, but it's not correctly rounded in general. | |
llvm/lib/Transforms/Utils/SimplifyLibCalls.cpp | ||
1943–1944 | Do we actually have enough precision here if the type is long double? |
llvm/include/llvm/Support/MathExtras.h | ||
---|---|---|
69 | Please use the correct number of digits (the smallest number of digits required to produce the correct double-precision result). Adding extra digits which don't actually affect the value is confusing. |
llvm/include/llvm/Support/MathExtras.h | ||
---|---|---|
66 | The correct value of sqrt(2) in double-precision is 1.4142135623730951. And now I don't trust any of the other values... | |
71 | Please mark the constants with "f", e.g. 2.718282f, so there isn't an extra rounding step. | |
llvm/lib/Transforms/Utils/SimplifyLibCalls.cpp | ||
1944 | I'm not sure this describes the issue correctly. You can specify a long double as a string, or raw bits. It can't interoperate with the native long double because that might have the wrong width. |
llvm/include/llvm/Support/MathExtras.h | ||
---|---|---|
66 | double has a precision of 15 or 16 significant digits. I don't understand why are you suggesting 17 significant digits when you asked to trim the precision down. Besides, the reference I provided states that this value is 1.41421356237309505. Whether it's rounded to 1.4142135623730950 or 1.4142135623730951 is a bit moot, IMO. | |
llvm/lib/Transforms/Utils/SimplifyLibCalls.cpp | ||
1944 | What wording would you suggest, please? |
llvm/include/llvm/Support/MathExtras.h | ||
---|---|---|
66 | I asked for "the smallest number of digits required to produce the correct double-precision result". This is what you get if, for example, you ask Python 2.7 or later to convert the value to a string with repr() (printf "import math\nprint(repr(math.sqrt(2)))" | python). 1.414213562373095 produces a value that's different by one ulp. Yes, a one ulp difference is unlikely to matter for most uses, but if we're going to take the time to define these, we should define them correctly. | |
llvm/lib/Transforms/Utils/SimplifyLibCalls.cpp | ||
1944 | Maybe just FIXME: add more precise value of "e" for various long double types. |
llvm/include/llvm/Support/MathExtras.h | ||
---|---|---|
66 | You're assuming that Python is correct. bc says 1.41421356237309504880. glibc's math.h says 1.41421356237309504880 as well. And none of these is the same as your 1.4142135623730951. As I said, the precision of double is 15 to 16 digits and of float, 6 to 7 digits. math.h defines them with 20 digits, which is probably an agreeable precision, yes? But I believe that we call all live with a difference of ±1ulp. |
@efriedma, you had a point. I now trimmed the precision down to one digit short of seeing a change in the mantissa bits.
LGTM
llvm/include/llvm/Support/MathExtras.h | ||
---|---|---|
66 | 1.4142135623730951 is the shortest decimal representation that produces the same double-precision number as 0x1.6a09e667f3bcdP+0. It isn't "correct" in any other sense, sure. A few extra digits is okay, I guess. |
llvm/include/llvm/Support/MathExtras.h | ||
---|---|---|
66 | Indeed, for some numbers more digits were necessary than for others. For uniformity's sake, I used the maximum from the number of digits required. Thank you. |
The correct value of sqrt(2) in double-precision is 1.4142135623730951.
And now I don't trust any of the other values...