__builtin_isnan currently generates a floating-point compare operation
which triggers a trap when faced with a signaling NaN in StrictFP mode.
This commit uses integer operations instead to not generate any trap in
such a case.
Details
Diff Detail
- Repository
- rG LLVM Github Monorepo
Unit Tests
Event Timeline
clang/lib/CodeGen/CGBuiltin.cpp | ||
---|---|---|
2988 | What about all the other FIXME related to strictfp, are we going to pick them off piecemeal? It would be nice to have a holistic approach, it would be more clear, and less duplicated code. For example, presumably the test at line 2991 is common. | |
3001 | Are you using a reference (e.g. existing implementation) for this rewrite, or is this invention? If a reference can you please tell me what it is. The expression you have written here doesn't match the codegen below. I don't see the comparison to zero. Can you provide full parenthesization--the compare to zero is lower than subtract? | |
3010 | compared to the comment above at line 3001, lhs and rhs are swapped in the sub | |
3011 | the comment at line 3001 doesn't show the lshr or the compare to zero | |
clang/test/CodeGen/X86/strictfp_builtins.c | ||
2 | Why did you put long double into this new test case instead of putting it with the float and double in strictfp_builtins? |
clang/lib/CodeGen/CGBuiltin.cpp | ||
---|---|---|
2988 | I do want to do isinf and other similar builtin but I would prefer to have a review of this to see if there's anything wrong with my approach before I work on other builtins. Once I do I'll factor things out as needed. | |
3010 | My bad, the comment needs to be fixed. | |
3011 | This logical right shift will move the sign bit to bit0 and set all other bits to 0. The result will be 1 (true) if sign bit is set (sub is negative) or 0 (false) otherwise. That matches the comment. Would you like me to add a comment here to make it more explicit? | |
clang/test/CodeGen/X86/strictfp_builtins.c | ||
2 | long double is implemented differently for each target. x86 uses an 80 bit extended precision format, AFAIK AArch64 uses a 128bit IEEE format, etc. |
clang/lib/CodeGen/CGBuiltin.cpp | ||
---|---|---|
2995 | I'm not too sure if that's enough to check isIEEE here. x86 extended precision behaves a bit different to IEEE single and double precision, esp. wrt. infinite and NaN. I've decided to ignore NaN values that are deprecated since the 8087. | |
3001 | I've noticed glibc isnan implementation does not trigger a trap so I've looked at the assembly it generates for the float case. This is the generalized version for double and long double as well. |
- Fix order of sub operands in comments and use fully parenthesized expression
- Explain how LShr is equivalent to < 0
clang/lib/CodeGen/CGBuiltin.cpp | ||
---|---|---|
3011 | No, that's OK, you don't need to do that. thanks. I'd like to see what other reviewers say, thanks for working on this! |
This looks like a definite step forward. Thank you!
Can you do an AArch64 test case showing long double? Right now there's no 128-bit test case.
Assuming Ty->getScalarSizeInBits() returns 64, 80, or 128 in those cases, I think it's good enough to just add an AArch64 (or some other 128-bit long double host) and call it a day. We're testing isnan(), not that command line option, after all.
Add AArch64 testcase and rebase
clang/test/CodeGen/aarch64-strictfp-builtins.c | ||
---|---|---|
1 | AArch64 is not StrictFP enabled so we need this option. |
What about all the other FIXME related to strictfp, are we going to pick them off piecemeal? It would be nice to have a holistic approach, it would be more clear, and less duplicated code. For example, presumably the test at line 2991 is common.