[Patch 3/11] Implement TARGET_C_EXCESS_PRECISION for s390

Andreas Krebbel krebbel@linux.vnet.ibm.com
Fri Oct 7 08:34:00 GMT 2016

On 10/04/2016 03:42 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Oct 2016, Andreas Krebbel wrote:
>>> EXCESS_PRECISION_TYPE_FAST would accurately describe what the back end 
>>> does.  It would mean that the default FLT_EVAL_METHOD is 0, which is a 
>>> more accurate description of how the compiler actually behaves, and would 
>>> avoid the suboptimal code in libgcc and glibc.  It would however mean that 
>>> unless -fexcess-precision=standard is used, FLT_EVAL_METHOD (accurate) is 
>>> out of synx with float_t in math.h (inaccurate).
>> With (b) we would violate the C standard which explicitly states that 
>> the definition of float_t needs to be float if FLT_EVAL_METHOD is 0. 
>> I've no idea how much code really relies on that. So far I only know 
>> about the Plum Hall testsuite ;) So this probably would still be a safe 
>> change. Actually it was like that for many years without any problems 
>> ... until I've changed it due to the Plum Hall finding :( 
>> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-03/msg01124.html
> You'd only violate it outside standards conformance modes (which you 
> should be using for running conformance testsuites); with -std=c11 etc. 
> -fexcess-precision=standard would be implied, meaning FLT_EVAL_METHOD 
> remains as 1 in that case.

wrt (b): Agreed. I was more concerned about all the other code which might accidently be built
without a strict standard compliance option. I did some searches in the source package repos. The
only snippet where the definition of FLT_EVAL_METHOD might affect code generation is in musl libc
but that one is being built with -std=c99. So I don't see anything speaking against (b). I'm ok with
going that way.

wrt (c): float_t appears to be more widely used than I expected. But the only hits which might
indicate potential ABI problems where in clucene and libassa. (I've scanned the header files of
about 25k Ubuntu source packages).
I'm also not sure about script language interfaces with C. There might be potential problems out
there which I wasn't able to catch with my scan.
While I fully agree with you that the float_t type definition for S/390 in Glibc is plain wrong I do
not really feel comfortable with changing it.

An interesting case is imagemagick. They define their ABI-relevant MagickRealType based on the size
of float_t in recent versions but excplicitly without depending on FLT_EVAL_METHOD
(http://www.imagemagick.org/discourse-server/viewtopic.php?t=22136). They build with -std=gnu99 so
this helps us with (b) I think. To my understanding MagickRealType would stay double not affected by


More information about the Gcc-patches mailing list