Re: Ping Re: Add option for whether ceil etc. can raise "inexact", adjust x86 conditions

2016-06-02 Thread Joseph Myers 
On Thu, 2 Jun 2016, Jan Hubicka wrote:

> > Ping.  This patch 
> >  is pending 
> > review (for the non-x86-specific parts).
> The inliner bits looks fine to me. Of course it is easy to check whether the
> function actually calls floor/ceil and thus is affected by this flag.  Do you
> expect this to matter? I.e. do you expect that codebases will mix both values
> of this flag in one project and expect cross-module inlining to work with LTO?

I don't expect much use of this option until -fno-fp-int-builtin-inexact 
is implied by -std=c2x / -std=gnu2x (supposing TS 18661-1 gets integrated 
for the next major revision of the C standard - not the bug-fix revision 
due first).  At that point people might start using those options (I'd 
still expect people to be consistent within one project, but maybe not for 
separately maintained libraries).

-- 
Joseph S. Myers
jos...@codesourcery.com

Re: Ping Re: Add option for whether ceil etc. can raise "inexact", adjust x86 conditions

2016-06-02 Thread Joseph Myers 
On Thu, 2 Jun 2016, Bernd Schmidt wrote:

> On 06/02/2016 02:00 PM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> > > Ping.  This patch
> > >  is pending
> > > review (for the non-x86-specific parts).
> > The inliner bits looks fine to me.
> 
> In case that leaves anything unapproved, the remaining parts are OK too,
> modulo one question - shouldn't this option be added to the set enabled by
> -funsafe-math-optimizations? It looks like one pattern in i386.md used to be
> enabled by this option and now is no longer.

-funsafe-math-optimizations implies -fno-trapping-math which causes this 
option to have no effect (the difference between -ffp-int-builtin-inexact 
and -fno-fp-int-builtin-inexact is only meaningful if -ftrapping-math, 
since it relates to the raising of exceptions).  The patterns testing this 
option all test (flag_fp_int_builtin_inexact || !flag_trapping_math).

-- 
Joseph S. Myers
jos...@codesourcery.com

Re: Ping Re: Add option for whether ceil etc. can raise "inexact", adjust x86 conditions

2016-06-02 Thread Bernd Schmidt 

On 06/02/2016 02:00 PM, Jan Hubicka wrote:

Ping.  This patch
 is pending
review (for the non-x86-specific parts).

The inliner bits looks fine to me.


In case that leaves anything unapproved, the remaining parts are OK too, 
modulo one question - shouldn't this option be added to the set enabled 
by -funsafe-math-optimizations? It looks like one pattern in i386.md 
used to be enabled by this option and now is no longer.



Bernd

Re: Ping Re: Add option for whether ceil etc. can raise "inexact", adjust x86 conditions

2016-06-02 Thread Jan Hubicka 
> Ping.  This patch 
>  is pending 
> review (for the non-x86-specific parts).
The inliner bits looks fine to me. Of course it is easy to check whether the
function actually calls floor/ceil and thus is affected by this flag.  Do you
expect this to matter? I.e. do you expect that codebases will mix both values
of this flag in one project and expect cross-module inlining to work with LTO?
(Dealing with codegen flags in inliner is really painful. Basically I am trying
to do that on demand now - when I see it blocks inlining in one of larger 
project
I test. We will need better longer term strategry later I suppose.)

Honza
> 
> -- 
> Joseph S. Myers
> jos...@codesourcery.com

Ping Re: Add option for whether ceil etc. can raise "inexact", adjust x86 conditions

2016-06-02 Thread Joseph Myers 
Ping.  This patch 
 is pending 
review (for the non-x86-specific parts).

-- 
Joseph S. Myers
jos...@codesourcery.com