Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Add trigonometric functions that work in degrees.
On 04/26/2016 11:26 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > OK, I've pushed a change along these lines. Peter, would you see whether > HEAD fixes it for you? Yeah, it passes now. Nobody touch anything! ;-) -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Add trigonometric functions that work in degrees.
On 26 April 2016 at 16:26, Tom Lanewrote: > The next time somebody proposes that we can get exact results out of > floating-point arithmetic, I'm going to run away screaming. > Yeah, I think I will have the same reaction. Thanks for all your hard work getting this to work. Regards, Dean -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Add trigonometric functions that work in degrees.
On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 11:36 AM, Tom Lanewrote: > Robert Haas writes: >> On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 11:26 AM, Tom Lane wrote: >>> The next time somebody proposes that we can get exact results out of >>> floating-point arithmetic, I'm going to run away screaming. > >> And you wonder why I avoid floating point variables like the plague...! > > Float variables are fine for their intended use-case. The problem is > with trying to guarantee identical results across all platforms. Yeah, yeah... :-) -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Add trigonometric functions that work in degrees.
Robert Haaswrites: > On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 11:26 AM, Tom Lane wrote: >> The next time somebody proposes that we can get exact results out of >> floating-point arithmetic, I'm going to run away screaming. > And you wonder why I avoid floating point variables like the plague...! Float variables are fine for their intended use-case. The problem is with trying to guarantee identical results across all platforms. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Add trigonometric functions that work in degrees.
On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 11:26 AM, Tom Lanewrote: > The next time somebody proposes that we can get exact results out of > floating-point arithmetic, I'm going to run away screaming. And you wonder why I avoid floating point variables like the plague...! -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Add trigonometric functions that work in degrees.
Dean Rasheedwrites: > On 26 April 2016 at 04:25, Tom Lane wrote: >> In short, these tests suggest that we need a coding pattern like >> this: >> volatile float8 asin_x = asin(x); >> return (asin_x / asin_0_5) * 30.0; > Agreed. That looks like the least hacky way of solving the problem. I > think it's more readable when the logic is kept local, and it's > preferable to avoid any compiler-specific options or global flags that > would affect other code. OK, I've pushed a change along these lines. Peter, would you see whether HEAD fixes it for you? The next time somebody proposes that we can get exact results out of floating-point arithmetic, I'm going to run away screaming. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Add trigonometric functions that work in degrees.
On 26 April 2016 at 04:25, Tom Lanewrote: > In short, these tests suggest that we need a coding pattern like > this: > > volatile float8 asin_x = asin(x); > return (asin_x / asin_0_5) * 30.0; > > We could drop the "volatile" by adopting -ffloat-store, but that > doesn't seem like a better answer, because -ffloat-store would > pessimize a lot of code elsewhere. (It causes a whole lot of > changes in float.c, for sure.) Agreed. That looks like the least hacky way of solving the problem. I think it's more readable when the logic is kept local, and it's preferable to avoid any compiler-specific options or global flags that would affect other code. 6b1a213bbd6599228b2b67f7552ff7cc378797bf by itself looks like a worthwhile improvement that ought to be more robust, even though it didn't fix this problem. Regards, Dean -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Add trigonometric functions that work in degrees.
I wrote: > Evidently, asin() is returning an 80-bit result, and that's not > getting rounded to double width before we divide by asin_0_5. I found that I could reproduce this type of assembly-code behavior on dromedary (gcc version 4.2.1) by using -mfpmath=387. That box doesn't show the visible regression-test failure, but that must be down to its version of asin() not producing the same low-order bits that yours does. It's clear from the assembly output that the code *would* misbehave given an appropriate asin() library function. With that version of gcc, just casting the function output to double changes nothing. The local-variable solution likewise. I do get a useful fix if I declare the asin_x local variable volatile: .loc 1 1873 0 fstpl (%esp) call_asin + fstpl -16(%ebp) + LVL107: + fldl-16(%ebp) fdivl _asin_0_5-"L019$pb"(%ebx) fmuls LC21-"L019$pb"(%ebx) Interestingly, declaring asin_x as global is not enough to fix it, because it stores into the global but doesn't fetch back: .loc 1 1873 0 fstpl (%esp) call_asin + movlL_asin_x$non_lazy_ptr-"L019$pb"(%ebx), %eax + fstl(%eax) fdivl _asin_0_5-"L019$pb"(%ebx) fmuls LC21-"L019$pb"(%ebx) Declaring asin_x as a volatile global does fix it: .loc 1 1873 0 fstpl (%esp) call_asin + movlL_asin_x$non_lazy_ptr-"L019$pb"(%ebx), %eax + fstpl (%eax) + fldl(%eax) fdivl _asin_0_5-"L019$pb"(%ebx) fmuls LC21-"L019$pb"(%ebx) but that seems like just being uglier without much redeeming value. In short, these tests suggest that we need a coding pattern like this: volatile float8 asin_x = asin(x); return (asin_x / asin_0_5) * 30.0; We could drop the "volatile" by adopting -ffloat-store, but that doesn't seem like a better answer, because -ffloat-store would pessimize a lot of code elsewhere. (It causes a whole lot of changes in float.c, for sure.) regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Add trigonometric functions that work in degrees.
On 04/21/2016 08:18 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Hm. This seems to prove that we're not getting exactly 1.0 from > (asin(x) / asin_0_5) with x = 0.5, but I'm having a hard time guessing > why that might be so when all the other cases work. > > Could you send along the assembler code generated by the compiler (-S > output) for float.c? Maybe that would shed some light. Probably the > -O0 version would be easier to read. Attached is a smaller test program that prints 29.9964 (same as failing test result) as well as its assembler code. #include #include #include static double sub() { double asin_0_5 = asin(0.5); double x = 0.5; return (asin(x) / asin_0_5) * 30.0; } int main() { printf("%.*g\n", DBL_DIG + 3, sub()); return 0; } .file "test.c" .text .type sub, @function sub: .LFB0: .cfi_startproc pushl %ebp .cfi_def_cfa_offset 8 .cfi_offset 5, -8 movl%esp, %ebp .cfi_def_cfa_register 5 subl$24, %esp fldl.LC0 fstpl -16(%ebp) fldl.LC1 fstpl -24(%ebp) subl$8, %esp pushl -20(%ebp) pushl -24(%ebp) callasin addl$16, %esp fdivl -16(%ebp) fldl.LC2 fmulp %st, %st(1) leave .cfi_restore 5 .cfi_def_cfa 4, 4 ret .cfi_endproc .LFE0: .size sub, .-sub .section.rodata .LC4: .string "%.*g\n" .text .globl main .type main, @function main: .LFB1: .cfi_startproc leal4(%esp), %ecx .cfi_def_cfa 1, 0 andl$-16, %esp pushl -4(%ecx) pushl %ebp .cfi_escape 0x10,0x5,0x2,0x75,0 movl%esp, %ebp pushl %ecx .cfi_escape 0xf,0x3,0x75,0x7c,0x6 subl$4, %esp callsub leal-8(%esp), %esp fstpl (%esp) pushl $18 pushl $.LC4 callprintf addl$16, %esp movl$0, %eax movl-4(%ebp), %ecx .cfi_def_cfa 1, 0 leave .cfi_restore 5 leal-4(%ecx), %esp .cfi_def_cfa 4, 4 ret .cfi_endproc .LFE1: .size main, .-main .section.rodata .align 8 .LC0: .long 942502758 .long 1071694162 .align 8 .LC1: .long 0 .long 1071644672 .align 8 .LC2: .long 0 .long 1077805056 .ident "GCC: (Debian 5.3.1-13) 5.3.1 20160323" .section.note.GNU-stack,"",@progbits -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Add trigonometric functions that work in degrees.
Peter Eisentrautwrites: > On 04/25/2016 03:09 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> I'm going to go ahead and push this, because it seems clearly more robust >> than what we have. But I'd appreciate a report on whether it fixes your >> issue. > 6b1a213bbd6599228b2b67f7552ff7cc378797bf did not fix it. OK ... but it's still a good change, because it removes the assumption that the compiler won't inline init_degree_constants(). > Attached is the assembler output (-O0) from float.c as of that commit. Ah. Here's the problem: line 1873 is return (asin(x) / asin_0_5) * 30.0; and that compiles into subl$8, %esp pushl -12(%ebp) ... push x pushl -16(%ebp) callasin... call asin() addl$16, %esp fldlasin_0_5... divide by asin_0_5 fdivrp %st, %st(1) fldt.LC46 ... multiply by 30.0 fmulp %st, %st(1) fstpl -24(%ebp) ... round to 64 bits fldl-24(%ebp) Evidently, asin() is returning an 80-bit result, and that's not getting rounded to double width before we divide by asin_0_5. The least ugly change that might fix this is to explicitly cast the result of asin to double: return ((float8) asin(x) / asin_0_5) * 30.0; However, I'm not certain that that would do anything; the compiler might feel that the result of asin() is already double. The next messier answer is to explicitly store the function result in a local variable: { float8 asin_x = asin(x); return (asin_x / asin_0_5) * 30.0; } A sufficiently cavalier compiler might choose to optimize that away, too. A look at gcc's manual suggests that we might need to use the -ffloat-store option to guarantee it will work; which is ugly and I'd prefer not to turn that on globally anyway. If it comes to that, probably the better answer is to turn asin_x into a global variable, similarly to what we just did with the constants. Can you try the above variants of line 1873 and see if either of them fixes the issue for you? regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Add trigonometric functions that work in degrees.
On 04/25/2016 03:09 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > I'm going to go ahead and push this, because it seems clearly more robust > than what we have. But I'd appreciate a report on whether it fixes your > issue. 6b1a213bbd6599228b2b67f7552ff7cc378797bf did not fix it. Attached is the assembler output (-O0) from float.c as of that commit. float.s.gz Description: application/gzip -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Add trigonometric functions that work in degrees.
I wrote: > If that is the answer, then the next question is how we can put more > roadblocks in the way of compile-time evaluation of asin(0.5). Dean > suggested that creative use of "volatile" might do it, and I agree > that that sounds like a promising thing to pursue. It occurred to me that we don't actually need "volatile". What we need is a variable that the compiler is not allowed to assume is a compile-time constant, and a plain global variable is sufficient for that. In the attached patch, we no longer need an assumption that init_degree_constants doesn't get inlined; we only need to assume that the compiler can't prove the variables degree_c_thirty etc to be immutable. Which it cannot, even if it does global optimization across the whole PG executable, because it has to consider that loadable extensions might change them. I'm going to go ahead and push this, because it seems clearly more robust than what we have. But I'd appreciate a report on whether it fixes your issue. regards, tom lane diff --git a/src/backend/utils/adt/float.c b/src/backend/utils/adt/float.c index c7c0b58..a95ebe5 100644 *** a/src/backend/utils/adt/float.c --- b/src/backend/utils/adt/float.c *** static float8 atan_1_0 = 0; *** 77,91 static float8 tan_45 = 0; static float8 cot_45 = 0; /* Local function prototypes */ static int float4_cmp_internal(float4 a, float4 b); static int float8_cmp_internal(float8 a, float8 b); static double sind_q1(double x); static double cosd_q1(double x); ! ! /* This is INTENTIONALLY NOT STATIC. Don't "fix" it. */ ! void init_degree_constants(float8 thirty, float8 forty_five, float8 sixty, ! float8 one_half, float8 one); #ifndef HAVE_CBRT /* --- 77,100 static float8 tan_45 = 0; static float8 cot_45 = 0; + /* + * These are intentionally not static; don't "fix" them. They will never + * be referenced by other files, much less changed; but we don't want the + * compiler to know that, else it might try to precompute expressions + * involving them. See comments for init_degree_constants(). + */ + float8 degree_c_thirty = 30.0; + float8 degree_c_forty_five = 45.0; + float8 degree_c_sixty = 60.0; + float8 degree_c_one_half = 0.5; + float8 degree_c_one = 1.0; + /* Local function prototypes */ static int float4_cmp_internal(float4 a, float4 b); static int float8_cmp_internal(float8 a, float8 b); static double sind_q1(double x); static double cosd_q1(double x); ! static void init_degree_constants(void); #ifndef HAVE_CBRT /* *** dtan(PG_FUNCTION_ARGS) *** 1814,1848 * compilers out there that will precompute expressions such as sin(constant) * using a sin() function different from what will be used at runtime. If we * want exact results, we must ensure that none of the scaling constants used ! * in the degree-based trig functions are computed that way. ! * ! * The whole approach fails if init_degree_constants() gets inlined into the ! * call sites, since then constant-folding can happen anyway. Currently it ! * seems sufficient to declare it non-static to prevent that. We have no ! * expectation that other files will call this, but don't tell gcc that. * * Other hazards we are trying to forestall with this kluge include the * possibility that compilers will rearrange the expressions, or compute * some intermediate results in registers wider than a standard double. */ ! void ! init_degree_constants(float8 thirty, float8 forty_five, float8 sixty, ! float8 one_half, float8 one) { ! sin_30 = sin(thirty * RADIANS_PER_DEGREE); ! one_minus_cos_60 = 1.0 - cos(sixty * RADIANS_PER_DEGREE); ! asin_0_5 = asin(one_half); ! acos_0_5 = acos(one_half); ! atan_1_0 = atan(one); ! tan_45 = sind_q1(forty_five) / cosd_q1(forty_five); ! cot_45 = cosd_q1(forty_five) / sind_q1(forty_five); degree_consts_set = true; } #define INIT_DEGREE_CONSTANTS() \ do { \ if (!degree_consts_set) \ ! init_degree_constants(30.0, 45.0, 60.0, 0.5, 1.0); \ } while(0) --- 1823,1853 * compilers out there that will precompute expressions such as sin(constant) * using a sin() function different from what will be used at runtime. If we * want exact results, we must ensure that none of the scaling constants used ! * in the degree-based trig functions are computed that way. To do so, we ! * compute them from the variables degree_c_thirty etc, which are also really ! * constants, but the compiler cannot assume that. * * Other hazards we are trying to forestall with this kluge include the * possibility that compilers will rearrange the expressions, or compute * some intermediate results in registers wider than a standard double. */ ! static void ! init_degree_constants(void) { ! sin_30 = sin(degree_c_thirty * RADIANS_PER_DEGREE); ! one_minus_cos_60 = 1.0 - cos(degree_c_sixty * RADIANS_PER_DEGREE); ! asin_0_5 =
Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Add trigonometric functions that work in degrees.
Peter Eisentrautwrites: > On 04/21/2016 08:18 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> Could you send along the assembler code generated by the compiler (-S >> output) for float.c? Maybe that would shed some light. Probably the >> -O0 version would be easier to read. > Attached is a smaller test program that prints 29.9964 (same > as failing test result) as well as its assembler code. This doesn't prove much. It's clear from the assembly code that the compiler is evaluating "asin(0.5)" at compile time (and, presumably, getting a different answer than would be produced at runtime). But that's entirely unsurprising given this source text: you've got a naked application of asin() to a constant. What we need to know, and what this doesn't quite prove, is whether the compiler is managing to see through the tricks that float.c uses to prevent compile-time calculation of that value. The fact that this produces the same number as we see in the regression test does point to the idea that that's what's happening. But it's not conclusive. Part of the reason I'm not sold is that even if the compiler can see through those tricks when optimizing, it hardly seems like it should do so at -O0. If that is the answer, then the next question is how we can put more roadblocks in the way of compile-time evaluation of asin(0.5). Dean suggested that creative use of "volatile" might do it, and I agree that that sounds like a promising thing to pursue. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Add trigonometric functions that work in degrees.
Peter Eisentrautwrites: > On 04/19/2016 04:48 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> Pushed. Peter, what results do you get from these tests on your >> problematic machine? > acosd(x), > acosd(x) IN (0,60,90,120,180) AS acosd_exact > FROM (VALUES (-1), (-0.5), (0), (0.5), (1)) AS t(x); > - x | asind | asind_exact | acosd | acosd_exact > ---+---+-+---+- > - -1 | -90 | t | 180 | t > - -0.5 | -30 | t | 120 | t > -0 | 0 | t |90 | t > - 0.5 |30 | t |60 | t > -1 |90 | t | 0 | t > + x |asind | asind_exact | acosd | acosd_exact > +--+--+-+---+- > + -1 | -90 | t | 180 | t > + -0.5 | -29.9964 | f | 120 | t > +0 |0 | t |90 | t > + 0.5 | 29.9964 | f |60 | t > +1 | 90 | t | 0 | t > (5 rows) > This is the same under the default -O2 and under -O0. Hm. This seems to prove that we're not getting exactly 1.0 from (asin(x) / asin_0_5) with x = 0.5, but I'm having a hard time guessing why that might be so when all the other cases work. Could you send along the assembler code generated by the compiler (-S output) for float.c? Maybe that would shed some light. Probably the -O0 version would be easier to read. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Add trigonometric functions that work in degrees.
On 04/19/2016 04:48 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Pushed. Peter, what results do you get from these tests on your > problematic machine? acosd(x), acosd(x) IN (0,60,90,120,180) AS acosd_exact FROM (VALUES (-1), (-0.5), (0), (0.5), (1)) AS t(x); - x | asind | asind_exact | acosd | acosd_exact ---+---+-+---+- - -1 | -90 | t | 180 | t - -0.5 | -30 | t | 120 | t -0 | 0 | t |90 | t - 0.5 |30 | t |60 | t -1 |90 | t | 0 | t + x |asind | asind_exact | acosd | acosd_exact +--+--+-+---+- + -1 | -90 | t | 180 | t + -0.5 | -29.9964 | f | 120 | t +0 |0 | t |90 | t + 0.5 | 29.9964 | f |60 | t +1 | 90 | t | 0 | t (5 rows) This is the same under the default -O2 and under -O0. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Add trigonometric functions that work in degrees.
Dean Rasheedwrites: > On 19 April 2016 at 14:38, Tom Lane wrote: >> Yeah, what I was thinking of printing is something like >> >> asind(x), >> asind(x) IN (-90,-30,0,30,90) AS asind_exact, >> ... >> >> with extra_float_digits=3. > OK, that sounds like it would be a useful improvement to the tests. Pushed. Peter, what results do you get from these tests on your problematic machine? regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Add trigonometric functions that work in degrees.
On 19 April 2016 at 14:38, Tom Lanewrote: > Yeah, what I was thinking of printing is something like > > asind(x), > asind(x) IN (-90,-30,0,30,90) AS asind_exact, > ... > > with extra_float_digits=3. The point of this is not necessarily to give > any extra information, though it might, but for failures to be more easily > interpretable. If I'd forgotten how the test worked just a few months > after committing it, how likely is it that some random user faced with a > similar failure would understand what they were seeing? > > Also, though I agree that it might not help much to know whether the > output is 45.0001 or 44., our thoughts would > be trending in quite a different direction if it turns out that the > output is radically wrong, or even a NaN. The existing test cannot > exclude that possibility. > OK, that sounds like it would be a useful improvement to the tests. Regards, Dean -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Add trigonometric functions that work in degrees.
Dean Rasheedwrites: > On 19 April 2016 at 05:16, Noah Misch wrote: >> On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 11:56:55PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >>> Hm? The expected answer is exact (30, 45, or whatever) in each case. >>> If we get some residual low-order digits then it's a failure, so we don't >>> need to worry about whether it's the same failure everywhere. >> Does something forbid snprintf implementations from printing '45'::float8 as >> 45.0001 under extra_float_digits=3? > I'm not sure it's really worth having the test output something like > 45.0001 since that extra detail doesn't really seem > particularly useful beyond the fact that the result wasn't exactly 45. > Also you'd have to be careful how you modified the test, since it's > possible that 45.0001 might be printed as '45' even under > extra_float_digits=3 and so there'd be a risk of the test passing when > it ought to fail, unless you also printed something else out to > indicate exactness. Yeah, what I was thinking of printing is something like asind(x), asind(x) IN (-90,-30,0,30,90) AS asind_exact, ... with extra_float_digits=3. The point of this is not necessarily to give any extra information, though it might, but for failures to be more easily interpretable. If I'd forgotten how the test worked just a few months after committing it, how likely is it that some random user faced with a similar failure would understand what they were seeing? Also, though I agree that it might not help much to know whether the output is 45.0001 or 44., our thoughts would be trending in quite a different direction if it turns out that the output is radically wrong, or even a NaN. The existing test cannot exclude that possibility. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Add trigonometric functions that work in degrees.
On 19 April 2016 at 05:16, Noah Mischwrote: > On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 11:56:55PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> Noah Misch writes: >> > On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 10:22:59PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> >> We could alternatively set extra_float_digits to its max value and hope >> >> that off-by-one-in-the-last-place values would get printed as something >> >> visibly different from the exact result. I'm not sure I want to trust >> >> that that works reliably; but maybe it would be worth printing the >> >> result both ways, just to provide additional info when there's a failure. >> >> > We'd have an independent problem if extra_float_digits=3 prints the same >> > digits for distinguishable float values, so I wouldn't mind relying on it >> > not >> > to do that. But can we expect the extra_float_digits=3 representation of >> > those particular values to be the same for every implementation? >> >> Hm? The expected answer is exact (30, 45, or whatever) in each case. >> If we get some residual low-order digits then it's a failure, so we don't >> need to worry about whether it's the same failure everywhere. > > Does something forbid snprintf implementations from printing '45'::float8 as > 45.0001 under extra_float_digits=3? I'm not sure it's really worth having the test output something like 45.0001 since that extra detail doesn't really seem particularly useful beyond the fact that the result wasn't exactly 45. Also you'd have to be careful how you modified the test, since it's possible that 45.0001 might be printed as '45' even under extra_float_digits=3 and so there'd be a risk of the test passing when it ought to fail, unless you also printed something else out to indicate exactness. Thinking about the actual failure in this case (asind(0.5) not returning exactly 30) a couple of theories spring to mind. One is that the compiler is being more aggressive over function inlining, so init_degree_constants() is being inlined, and then asin_0_5 is being evaluated at compile time rather than runtime, giving a slightly different result, as happened in the original version of this patch. Another theory is that the compiler is performing an unsafe ordering rearrangement and transforming (asin(x) / asin_0_5) * 30.0 into asin(x) * (30.0 / asin_0_5). This might happen for example under something like -funsafe-math-optimizations. I did a search for other people encountering similar problems and I came across the following quite interesting example in the Gnu Scientific Library's implementation of log1p() -- https://github.com/ampl/gsl/blob/master/sys/log1p.c. The reason the code is now written in that way is in response to this bug: https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-gsl/2007-07/msg8.html with an overly aggressive compiler. So using that technique, we might try using a volatile local variable to enforce the desired evaluation order, e.g.: volatile double tmp; tmp = asin(x) / asin_0_5; return tmp * 30.0; A similar trick could be used to protect against init_degree_constants() being inlined, by writing it as volatile double one_half = 0.5; asin_0_5 = asin(one_half); since then the compiler wouldn't be able to assume that one_half was still equal to 0.5, and wouldn't be able to optimise away the runtime evaluation of asin() in favour of a compile-time constant. These are both somewhat unconventional uses of volatile, but I think they stand a better chance of being more portable, and also more future-proof against compilers that might in the future make more advanced code inlining and rearrangement choices. Of course this is all pure speculation at this stage, but it seems like it's worth a try. Regards, Dean -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Add trigonometric functions that work in degrees.
Noah Mischwrites: > On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 10:22:59PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> We could alternatively set extra_float_digits to its max value and hope >> that off-by-one-in-the-last-place values would get printed as something >> visibly different from the exact result. I'm not sure I want to trust >> that that works reliably; but maybe it would be worth printing the >> result both ways, just to provide additional info when there's a failure. > We'd have an independent problem if extra_float_digits=3 prints the same > digits for distinguishable float values, so I wouldn't mind relying on it not > to do that. But can we expect the extra_float_digits=3 representation of > those particular values to be the same for every implementation? Hm? The expected answer is exact (30, 45, or whatever) in each case. If we get some residual low-order digits then it's a failure, so we don't need to worry about whether it's the same failure everywhere. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Add trigonometric functions that work in degrees.
Noah Mischwrites: > On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 09:17:46AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> Given that it's apparently showing the results of asind as NULL ... > I doubt asind is returning NULL. Here's the query, which uses a CASE to > report NULL if asind returns any value not on a whitelist: > SELECT x, >CASE WHEN asind(x) IN (-90,-30,0,30,90) THEN asind(x) END AS asind, >CASE WHEN acosd(x) IN (0,60,90,120,180) THEN acosd(x) END AS acosd, >CASE WHEN atand(x) IN (-45,0,45) THEN atand(x) END AS atand > FROM (VALUES (-1), (-0.5), (0), (0.5), (1)) AS t(x); Oh, duh --- should have checked the query. Yes, the most probable theory must be that it's returning something that's slightly off from the exact value. > I can see the benefit for atand(-0.5) and for atand(0.5), since those are > inexact. Does the CASE gain us anything for asind or acosd? None of these are expected to be inexact. The point of the CASE is to make it obvious if what's returned isn't *exactly* what we expect. We could alternatively set extra_float_digits to its max value and hope that off-by-one-in-the-last-place values would get printed as something visibly different from the exact result. I'm not sure I want to trust that that works reliably; but maybe it would be worth printing the result both ways, just to provide additional info when there's a failure. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers