[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[bug#49659] [PATCH core-updates] gnu: guile: Fix failing tests on i686-l
From: |
Maxime Devos |
Subject: |
[bug#49659] [PATCH core-updates] gnu: guile: Fix failing tests on i686-linux. |
Date: |
Tue, 20 Jul 2021 18:55:52 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Evolution 3.34.2 |
Ludovic Courtès schreef op di 20-07-2021 om 15:55 [+0200]:
> Hi!
>
> Maxime Devos <maximedevos@telenet.be> skribis:
>
> > i586-gnu might have the same issue.
>
> Please add a “Fixes …” line.
I didn't find the bug report.
> > (substitute-keyword-arguments (package-arguments guile-2.2)
> > ((#:configure-flags flags ''())
> > - (let ((flags `(cons "--enable-mini-gmp" ,flags)))
> > + ;; -fexcess-precision=standard is required when compiling for
> > + ;; i686-linux, otherwise "numbers.test" will fail.
> > + (let ((flags `(cons* "CFLAGS=-g -O2 -fexcess-precision=standard"
> > + "--enable-mini-gmp" ,flags)))
>
> Yay! Questions:
>
> 1. Should we make it conditional on
> (or (string-prefix? "i686-" %host-type)
> (string-prefix? "i586-" %host-type))
Rather, (target-x86-32?). target-x86-32? also recognises "i486-linux-gnu"
even though that's not a ‘supported’ cross-target.
> ? (I wonder why armhf-linux doesn’t have the same problem.)
AFAIK floats & doubles on arm don't have excess precision.
Floating-point numbers are either 32-bit or 64-bit,
unlike in x86, where the floating-point registers are 80-bit
but (sizeof) double==8 (64 bits).
(I'm ignoring MMX, SSE and the like.)
I don't know any architectures beside x86 which have excess precision.
"-fexcess-precision=standard" should be harmless on architectures
that don't have excess precision.
I'd make it unconditional, but conditional on x86-target? should work
for all ‘supported’ targets in Guix.
> 2. Is there any downside to compiling all of libguile with this flag?
I searched with "git grep -F double" and "git grep -F float".
Floating-point arithmetic doen't seem to be used much outside numbers.c.
There's vm-engine.c, but the results of the calculations are written
to some (stack?) memory (not a register), so the excess precision
would be thrown away anyway, so I don't expect a slow-down.
No code appears to be relying on excess precision.
> 3. Do we have a clear explanation of why ‘-fexcess-precision=fast’
> (the default) would lead to failures in ‘numbers.test’?
The problem I think is that the rounding choices made in
scm_i_inexact_floor_divide
must be consistent with those made in
scm_i_inexact_floor_quotient
and
scm_i_inexact_floor_remainder
(There are tests testing whether the results agree.)
"-fexcess-precision=standard" reduces the degrees of freedom GCC has
in choosing when to round, so it is more likely the rounding choices
coincide? It's only an untested hypothesis though.
FWIW, I think this line:
/* in scm_i_inexact_floor_remainder */
return scm_i_from_double (x - y * floor (x / y));
should be (for less fragility in case GCC changes its optimisations and
register allocation / spilling)
/* in scm_i_inexact_floor_remainder */
return scm_i_from_double (x - y * (double) floor (x / y));
even then, there's no guarantee the rounding choices for x/y
are the same in scm_i_inexact_floor_divide, scm_i_inexact_floor_remainder
and scm_i_inexact_floor_quotient.
> I looked at the GCC manual (info "(gcc) Optimize Options") and at links
> you provided earlier on IRC, but I can’t really explain how this would
> lead those tests to fail: <https://issues.guix.gnu.org/49368>;.
> I added a ‘printf’ call in ‘scm_i_inexact_floor_divide’, which is where
> it all happens:
>
> --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
> static void
> scm_i_inexact_floor_divide (double x, double y, SCM *qp, SCM *rp)
> {
> if (SCM_UNLIKELY (y == 0))
> scm_num_overflow (s_scm_floor_divide); /* or return a NaN? */
> else
> {
> double q = floor (x / y);
> double r = x - q * y;
> printf ("%s x=%f y=%f x/y=%f floor(x/y)=%f q=%f r=%f\n", __func__,
> x, y, x/y, floor (x/y), q, r);
> *qp = scm_i_from_double (q);
> *rp = scm_i_from_double (r);
> }
> }
> --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---
>
> I get this:
>
> --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
> scheme@(guile-user)> (euclidean/ 130. (exact->inexact 10/7))
> scm_i_inexact_floor_divide x=130.000000 y=1.428571 x/y=91.000000
> floor(x/y)=90.000000 q=90.000000 r=1.428571
> $1 = 90.0
> $2 = 1.4285714285714257
> --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---
>
> So it’s really ‘floor’ that’s messing up somehow.
>
I dunno if 'floor' is broken. Let me explain why this output is possible for a
well-implemented 'floor':
I want to note that printf("%f", floor(x/y))
can display 16 different strings:
GCC can choose to round 'x' and/or 'y' by moving it from a register to stack
memory.
(doesn't apply here I think because SCM values discard the excess precision)
GCC can choose to round the result of x/y (same reasons)
GCC can choose to round the result of floor(x/y) (same reasons)
Likewise, printf("%f", x/y) can display 8 different strings, and the rounding
choices may be different from those made for printf("%f", floor(x/y)).
So this inconsistency (x/y=91.00... > 90.00 = floor(x/y)) doesn't really
surprise me. A more concrete scenario: suppose the CPU is configured to round
upwards, and 'floor' is a mapping between extended-precision floating-point
numbers.
Let 'x' and 'y' be two floating-point numbers, such that:
(1) the mathematical value of 'x/y' is slightly less than 91
(2) 'x/y' when calculated in extended precision is slightly less than 91.
Denote this approximation as F1.
(3) 'x/y' when calculated in double precision is 91 (or slightly larger)
(due to the ‘rounding upwards’ mode, in ‘rounding downwards’ it might
have been slightly less than 91 as in (2))
Denote this approximation as F2.
Then [floor(x/y)=] floor(F1)=floor(90.999...)=90.0,
and [x/y=] F2=91.0, thus we seemingly have x/y >= 1 + floor(x/y),
even though that's mathematically nonsense.
Thus, by choosing when to round (in-)appropriately, it is possible (on x86)
that printf("x/y=%f, floor(x/y)=%f",x/y,floor(x/y)) will output "x/y=91.0
floor(x/y)=90.0".
(Please tell if I made an error somewhere.)
Greetings,
Maxime
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part