On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 6:03 PM Roland Scheidegger <srol...@vmware.com> wrote:
>
> Am 13.11.18 um 23:49 schrieb Dylan Baker:
> > Quoting Roland Scheidegger (2018-11-13 14:13:00)
> >> Am 13.11.18 um 18:00 schrieb Dylan Baker:
> >>> Quoting Erik Faye-Lund (2018-11-13 01:34:53)
> >>>> On Mon, 2018-11-12 at 09:22 -0800, Dylan Baker wrote:
> >>>>> Quoting Erik Faye-Lund (2018-11-12 04:51:47)
> >>>>>> On Fri, 2018-11-09 at 10:40 -0800, Dylan Baker wrote:
> >>>>>>> Which has the same behavior.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Does it? I'm not so sure... IROUND_POS seems to round to nearest
> >>>>>> integer depending on the FPU rounding mode, _mesa_roundevenf rounds
> >>>>>> to
> >>>>>> the nearest *even* value regardless of the FPU rounding mode, no?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I'm not sure if it matters or not, but *at least* point that out in
> >>>>>> the
> >>>>>> commit message. Unless I'm missing something, of course...
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I should put it in the commit message, but there is a comment in
> >>>>> rounding.h that
> >>>>> if you change the rounding mode you get to keep the pieces.
> >>>>
> >>>> Well, this might regress performance pretty badly. Especially in the
> >>>> swrast code, this could be bad...
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Why? we have the assumption that you don't change the rounding mode
> >>> already in
> >>> core mesa and many of the drivers.
> >>>
> >>> For performance, I measured a simple 1000 loops of rounding, and found
> >>> that the
> >>> only way the rounding.h function was slower is if you used the __SSE4_1__
> >>> path... (It was the same performance as the int cast +0.5 implementation)
> >> FWIW I'm not entirely sure it's useful to have a sse41 implementation -
> >> since all sse2 capable cpus can natively do rintf. Although maybe it
> >> should be pointed out that the sse41 implementation will use a defined
> >> rounding mode, whereas rintf will use current rounding mode. But I don't
> >> think anyone ever cares for the results if a different rounding mode
> >> would be set. Although of course rint and its variant do not actually
> >> guarantee the even part of it (but well if it's a sse41 capable box we
> >> pretty much know it would do just that anyway)... (And technically
> >> nearbyintf would probably be an even better solution, since we never
> >> want to get involved with the clunky exceptions, otherwise it's
> >> identical. But there might be reasons why it isn't used.)
> >>
> >> Roland
> >
> > I'm not convinced we want it either, since it seems to be slower than
> > glibc's
> > rintf. I guess it probably does make sense to use the nearbyintf instead.
> >
> > As an aside (since I know 0 about assembly), does _MM_FROUND_CUR_DIRECTION
> > not
> > check the rounding mode?
> Oh indeed, I didn't check the code too closely (I was just assuming
> _mm_round_ss() was used because it is possible to use round-to-nearest
> regardless the actual rounding mode, but that's not the case).
>
> But actually I misread this code: the point of mesa_roundevenf is to
> round to float WITHOUT conversion to int. In which case it makes more
> sense at least at first look...
>
> But if you want to round to nearest integer WITH conversion to int, you
> probably really want to use something else. nearbyint family doesn't
> have variants which give you ints. There's rint functions which give you
> ints directly, but they are likely a very bad idea (aside from exception
Why?
> handling, not quite sure if this really causes the compiler to do
> something different) because of giving you long (or long long) results -
> meaning that you can't use the simple cpu instructions giving you 32bit
> results (because conversion to 64bit long + trunc to 32bit will give you
> defined (although meaningless) results in some cases where direct
> conversion to 32bit int wouldn't).
> So ideally you'd pick a variant where the compiler is smart enough to
> recognize it can be done with a single instruction. I would guess
> nearbyintf + int cast should do just about everywhere, at least as long
> as x64 or x86 + sse2 is used, my suspicion is the old IROUND function
> was done in a time where x87 was still relevant. Or maybe rintf + int
> cast, no idea how the compiler really handles them differently (I tried
> to quickly look at it in gcc source, but no idea where those are
> buried). As a side note, I hate it when the assembly solution is obvious
> and you can't really figure out how the hell you should coax the
> compiler in giving you the right answer (I mean, high level languages
> are there to help, not get in your way...).
Please read the commit message of
commit dd0d3a2c0fb388745519c8a3be800720541eccfe
Author: Matt Turner <matts...@gmail.com>
Date: Tue Mar 10 17:55:21 2015 -0700
mesa: Replace _mesa_round_to_even() with _mesa_roundeven().
for a lot of the background.
I expect IROUND_POS can be replaced with the _mesa_lroundevenf function.
_______________________________________________
mesa-dev mailing list
mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
