rsmith accepted this revision.
rsmith added a comment.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
Thanks, I'm happy with this, though please wait a day or two for comments from
the other reviewers.
We should also add some documentation covering the rules we're using for the
floating-point environment in C++, particularly around initializers for
variables with static storage duration, given that that's not governed by any
language standard.
================
Comment at: clang/test/CodeGen/fp-floatcontrol-pragma.cpp:159
+ //CHECK: store float 3.0{{.*}}retval{{.*}}
+ static double v = 1.0 / 3.0;
+ //CHECK-FENV: llvm.experimental.constrained.fptrunc.f32.f64{{.*}}
----------------
mibintc wrote:
> @rsmith - the division is constant folded. is that right?
Yes, that's in line with our new expectations for C++. Specifically: for static
/ thread-local variables, first try evaluating the initializer in a constant
context, including in the constant floating point environment (just like in C),
and then, if that fails, fall back to emitting runtime code to perform the
initialization (which might in general be in a different FP environment). Given
that `1.0 / 3.0` is a constant initializer, it should get folded using the
constant rounding mode. But, for example:
```
double f() {
int n = 0;
static double v = 1.0 / 3.0 + 0 * n;
return v;
}
```
... should emit a constrained `fdiv` at runtime, because the read of `n` causes
the initializer to not be a constant initializer. And similarly:
```
double f() {
double v = 1.0 / 3.0 + 0 * n;
return v;
}
```
... should emit a constrained `fdiv`, because `v` is not a static storage
duration variable, so there is formally no "first try evaluating the
initializer as a constant" step.
================
Comment at: clang/test/Parser/pragma-fenv_access.c:28
+#if defined(CPP) & defined(STRICT)
+//not-expected-error@+3 {{constexpr variable 'frac' must be initialized by a
constant expression}}
+//not-expected-note@+2 {{compile time floating point arithmetic suppressed in
strict evaluation modes}}
----------------
mibintc wrote:
> @rsmith no diagnostic, is this OK?
Under the new approach from D89360, I would expect no diagnostic with `CONST`
defined as `constexpr`, because the initializer is then manifestly
constant-evaluated, so should be evaluated in the constant rounding mode.
With `CONST` defined as merely `const`, I'd expect that we emit a constrained
floating-point operation using the runtime rounding mode here. You can test
that we don't constant-evaluate the value of a (non-`constexpr`) `const float`
variable by using this hack (with `CONST` defined as `const`):
```
enum {
e1 = (int)one, e3 = (int)three, e4 = (int)four, e_four_quarters =
(int)(frac_ok * 4)
};
static_assert(e1 == 1 && e3 == 3 && e4 == 4 && e_four_quarters == 1, "");
enum {
e_three_thirds = (int)(frac * 3) // expected-error {{not an integral constant
expression}}
};
```
(The hack here is that we permit constant folding in the values of enumerators,
and we allow constant folding to look at the evaluated values of `const float`
variables. This should not be allowed for `frac`, because attempting to
evaluate its initializer should fail.)
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D87528/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D87528
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
