On Tue, 16 Oct 2018 at 19:33, Giuliano Augusto Faulin Belinassi
<giuliano.belina...@usp.br> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> > cosatanf:
> > .LFB3:
> > .loc 1 44 1 is_stmt 1
> > .cfi_startproc
> > @ args = 0, pretend = 0, frame = 0
> > @ frame_needed = 0, uses_anonymous_args = 0
> > .LVL50:
> > .loc 1 45 5
> > .loc 1 44 1 is_stmt 0
> > push {r4, lr}
> > .cfi_def_cfa_offset 8
> > .cfi_offset 4, -8
> > .cfi_offset 14, -4
> > .loc 1 45 12
> > bl atanf
> > .LVL51:
> > .loc 1 46 1
> > pop {r4, lr}
> > .cfi_restore 14
> > .cfi_restore 4
> > .cfi_def_cfa_offset 0
> > .loc 1 45 12
> > b cosf
> > .LVL52:
>
> This means that the expression 'cos (atan (x))' was not simplified
> :-(. Did the check at line 4281 (svn revision 265209) in gcc/match.pd
> failed?
Do you mean r265064? There's no r265209 in trunk.
> > Yes, if we want to skip the test, but I'm not sure about that?
> Since the only point of this patch is to simplify these kind of
> expressions, and it is not being simplified at all in your arch as the
> asm dump suggests, then it seems safe to skip all sinatan-*.c tests.
> On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 1:25 PM Christophe Lyon
> <christophe.l...@linaro.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 16 Oct 2018 at 18:04, Giuliano Augusto Faulin Belinassi
> > <giuliano.belina...@usp.br> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hello, Christophe
> > > Could you please dump the assembly of cosatanf here?
> > >
> > >
> > Sure:
> > .global cosatanf
> > .syntax unified
> > .arm
> > .fpu softvfp
> > .type cosatanf, %function
> > cosatanf:
> > .LFB3:
> > .loc 1 44 1 is_stmt 1
> > .cfi_startproc
> > @ args = 0, pretend = 0, frame = 0
> > @ frame_needed = 0, uses_anonymous_args = 0
> > .LVL50:
> > .loc 1 45 5
> > .loc 1 44 1 is_stmt 0
> > push {r4, lr}
> > .cfi_def_cfa_offset 8
> > .cfi_offset 4, -8
> > .cfi_offset 14, -4
> > .loc 1 45 12
> > bl atanf
> > .LVL51:
> > .loc 1 46 1
> > pop {r4, lr}
> > .cfi_restore 14
> > .cfi_restore 4
> > .cfi_def_cfa_offset 0
> > .loc 1 45 12
> > b cosf
> > .LVL52:
> > .cfi_endproc
> > .LFE3:
> > .size cosatanf, .-cosatanf
> >
> > So, upon entry we have r0=0x5f800000
> > atanf returns 0x3fc90fdb
> > and cosf returns 0xb33bbd2e
> >
> >
> > > On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 12:23 PM Christophe Lyon
> > > <christophe.l...@linaro.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, 16 Oct 2018 at 17:15, Giuliano Augusto Faulin Belinassi
> > > > <giuliano.belina...@usp.br> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hello. Sorry for the late reply.
> > > > >
> > > > > > but then cosatanf is computed as (ie there's not call to
> > > > > > cosatanf()):
> > > > > > movw r3, #48430
> > > > > > movt r3, 45883
> > > > > > so r3=0xb33bbd2e (-4.371139E-8) which is not zero.
> > > > > Does this behavior is still present if we change the line 58 to:
> > > > > int __attribute__ ((optimize("O0")))
> > > > > in sinatan-1.c?
> > > >
> > > > No, this now generates:
> > > > ldr r0, [fp, #-32]
> > > > bl cosatanf
> > > > where r0=0x5f800000, and cosatanf() returns 0xb33bbd2e
> > > > (ie the same value as what was computed by GCC)
> > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 3:24 PM Christophe Lyon
> > > > > <christophe.l...@linaro.org> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Fri, 12 Oct 2018 at 20:01, Giuliano Augusto Faulin Belinassi
> > > > > > <giuliano.belina...@usp.br> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > fc is built with:
> > > > > > > > mov r0, #0
> > > > > > > > movt r0, 24448
> > > > > > > > so r0=0x5f800000 (1.8446744E19) which looks ok
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > this is correct. My x86_64 yields the same value
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > but then cosatanf is computed as (ie there's not call to
> > > > > > > > cosatanf()):
> > > > > > > > movw r3, #48430
> > > > > > > > movt r3, 45883
> > > > > > > > so r3=0xb33bbd2e (-4.371139E-8) which is not zero.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Ugh. So GCC replaced the function call with a precomputed value?
> > > > > > > This
> > > > > > > does not happens in my x86_64. Maybe it is Ofast's fault?
> > > > > > > Also, it seems that GCC is precomputing cos(atan(x)) before the
> > > > > > > substitution, as the following python script yields the same
> > > > > > > result:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yes, I was surprised to see that.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > import numpy as np
> > > > > > > x = np.float32 (1.8446744e19)
> > > > > > > print (np.cos (np.arctan (x))
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I would also like to add that -4.371139E-8 is very far away from
> > > > > > > 5.421011E-20, which is a "more" correct value for this
> > > > > > > computation. So
> > > > > > > returning 0 may be a better option?
> > > > > > > On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 12:57 PM Jeff Law <l...@redhat.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On 10/12/18 9:51 AM, Giuliano Augusto Faulin Belinassi wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Hello
> > > > > > > > > What is the output of these functions on such arch?
> > > > > > > > > Since the
> > > > > > > > > test didn't fail for the sinatan counterpart, an possible
> > > > > > > > > explanation
> > > > > > > > > would be that the calculation of the sqrf, sqrt and sqrtl
> > > > > > > > > (lines
> > > > > > > > > 62-64) yielded a number that is far behind of what it should
> > > > > > > > > be.
> > > > > > > > > However, I am still not sure about this, so I will investigate
> > > > > > > > > further.
> > > > > > > > > How about I write a small program to check if the result
> > > > > > > > > obtained by this calculation is what it should be?
> > > > > > > > I suspect it's less the architecture and more the underlying
> > > > > > > > library.
> > > > > > > > As Christophe mentioned, both issues are with newlib which is
> > > > > > > > an C
> > > > > > > > library primarily used in the emebedded space. I believe it's
> > > > > > > > math code
> > > > > > > > derives from early BSD libm and likely hasn't been stressed for
> > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > kind of correctness. It's lightly maintained (primarily for
> > > > > > > > cygwin).
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I'm going to run the testcases in my arm linux chroots. That
> > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > allow us to rule out codegen issues as those chroots will be
> > > > > > > > using glibc
> > > > > > > > for their math library.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > jeff
