-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 15.6k
Clang: Add nsz to llvm.minnum and llvm.maxnum emitted from fmin and fmax #113133
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Open
wzssyqa
wants to merge
8
commits into
llvm:main
Choose a base branch
from
wzssyqa:clang-fmin-with-nsz
base: main
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
Open
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
8 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
2170e67
Clang: emit llvm.minnum and llvm.maxnum with nsz always
wzssyqa d65e845
Merge branch 'main' into clang-fmin-with-nsz
wzssyqa b754adc
Update clang/test/CodeGen/fmaxnum_fminnum_use_nsz.c
wzssyqa 67b7f54
Merge branch 'main' into clang-fmin-with-nsz
wzssyqa 883919f
Merge branch 'main' into clang-fmin-with-nsz
wzssyqa d170c4d
Merge branch 'main' into clang-fmin-with-nsz
wzssyqa 48cce5f
Not use pointer
wzssyqa 9398186
Fix code format
wzssyqa File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I don't think this should apply in the elementwise case.
I also think it was a mistake to allow floating point in elementwise min/max
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
See: #129207
In that PR, we planned to use the same naming scheme
__builtin_elementwise_max -> max (fmax)
__builtin_elementwise_maxnum -> maxnum
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
If we are planning to drop float support of __builtin_elementwise, it should be in another patchset.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yes this should be discussed separately. Feedback from library authors has been that different builtins for floats/ints are a bit of a pain
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
But they are in fact, different operations. And you have many choices for which FP min/max.
Given this name doesn't have the historic fmin/fmax in it, I don't think this should take the fuzzy signed zero handling
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
In fact I am planning to add
__builtin_elementwise_maximumnumafter this PR is merged.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I agree this should not continue to use minnum/maxnum, though that change should not be part of this PR.
minnum/maxnum behavior has never been consistent across targets (or across scenarios). But we could also add __builtin_elementwise_maximumnum/__builtin_elementwise_minimnumnum
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
So can we merge this PR?
In fact, all of the architectures that claims implement IEEE754-2008, has the same behavior:
AArch64, MIPSr6, LoongArch, PowerPC/VSX
That's why I'd plan to define
minnum/maxnumas the same as these architectures.I will do it.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The discussion in #137567 is still unresolved.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
#137567 is about all opcodes, and in fact for min/max we have done with
#112852