On 10/12/18 8:11 AM, Christophe Lyon wrote: > On Fri, 12 Oct 2018 at 13:27, Richard Biener <richard.guent...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> >> On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 10:08 AM Christophe Lyon >> <christophe.l...@linaro.org> wrote: >>> >>> On Thu, 11 Oct 2018 at 23:07, Jeff Law <l...@redhat.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> On 10/9/18 5:29 PM, Giuliano Augusto Faulin Belinassi wrote: >>>>> Fixed all issues pointed in the previous iteration. >>>>> There is now a significant change regarding how the sin(atan(x)) >>>>> constant is calculated, as now it checks for which values such that >>>>> computing 1 + x*x won't overflow. There are two reasons for this >>>>> change: (1) Avoid an intermediate infinity value when optimizing >>>>> cos(atan(x)), and (2) avoid the requirement of separate constants for >>>>> sin(atan(x)) and cos(atan(x)), thus making easier to maintain the >>>>> code. >>>>> >>>>> gcc/ChangeLog >>>>> >>>>> 2018-10-09 Giuliano Belinassi <giuliano.belina...@usp.br> >>>>> >>>>> PR tree-optimization/86829 >>>>> * match.pd: Added sin(atan(x)) and cos(atan(x)) simplification rules. >>>>> * real.c (build_sinatan_real): New function to build a constant equal >>>>> to the >>>>> largest value c such that 1 + c*c will not overflow. >>>>> * real.h (build_sinatan_real): Allows this function to be called >>>>> externally. >>>>> >>>>> gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/ChangeLog >>>>> >>>>> 2018-10-09 Giuliano Belinassi <giuliano.belina...@usp.br> >>>>> >>>>> PR tree-optimization/86829 >>>>> * gcc.dg/sinatan-1.c: New test. >>>>> * gcc.dg/sinatan-2.c: New test. >>>>> * gcc.dg/sinatan-3.c: New test. >>>>> >>>>> There are no tests broken in trunk that seems related to this PR. >>>> THanks. I've installed this onto the trunk. It's right at the >>>> borderline of what would require a copyright assignment. So if you're >>>> going to do further work on GCC you should go ahead and start the >>>> copyright assignment process. >>>> >>>> Jeff >>> >>> Hi! >>> >>> The new sinatan-1.c test fails to link against newlib on aarch64-elf: >>> /tmp/ccmp5fP4.o: In function `sinatanl': >>> sinatan-1.c:(.text+0x68): undefined reference to `atanl' >>> sinatan-1.c:(.text+0x70): undefined reference to `sinl' >>> /tmp/ccmp5fP4.o: In function `cosatanl': >>> sinatan-1.c:(.text+0x80): undefined reference to `atanl' >>> sinatan-1.c:(.text+0x88): undefined reference to `cosl' >>> collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status >>> >>> I'm not familiar enough with newlib to know if it's a newlib bug, or >>> if we should skip the test? >>> >>> On arm-eabi, the same test fails at runtime, but I haven't yet taken >>> the time to reproduce it manually. >> >> target_c99_math might do the trick >> > > Yes, if we want to skip the test, but I'm not sure about that? > On arm-eabi, adding some traces in the test indicates that the outputs > of cosatanf, cosatan and cosatanl are wrong. I think skipping on the newlib targets is fine. I'm much more concerned about the execution tests -- even if it's the library implementation that is wrong, it's going to be painful to manage the xfails over time.
jeff
