[PATCH v2] fma vs gcc 4.9

[Richard Henderson]

On 07/16/2014 01:56 PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Jul 2014, Richard Henderson wrote:
> 
>> It seems to me that there's a typo on that exact zero test: a2 should be used,
>> not m2.  Correct, or have I mis-read the code?
> 
> The existing exact zero test seems correct to me.  The conditions for such 
> an exact zero are that the result of the multiplication is exactly 
> representable in 53 bits (i.e., m2 == 0, with m1 being the exact result of 
> the multiplication), and that the result of the addition (of z to the high 
> part of the multipliation result) is an exact zero (i.e. a1 == 0, which 
> implies a2 == 0).
> 

Thanks.  This second version, then, does not s/m2/a2/, but merely adds the
appropriate barriers.  It also makes sure that m2 is complete before clearing
inexact, even though I saw no evidence of it being scheduled after the call.

Ok?


r~
-------------- next part --------------
diff --git a/sysdeps/ieee754/dbl-64/s_fma.c b/sysdeps/ieee754/dbl-64/s_fma.c
index 389acd4..77065aa 100644
--- a/sysdeps/ieee754/dbl-64/s_fma.c
+++ b/sysdeps/ieee754/dbl-64/s_fma.c
@@ -198,16 +198,17 @@ __fma (double x, double y, double z)
   t1 = m1 - t1;
   t2 = z - t2;
   double a2 = t1 + t2;
+  /* Ensure the arithmetic is not scheduled after feclearexcept call.  */
+  math_force_eval (m2);
+  math_force_eval (a2);
   feclearexcept (FE_INEXACT);
 
-  /* If the result is an exact zero, ensure it has the correct
-     sign.  */
+  /* If the result is an exact zero, ensure it has the correct sign.  */
   if (a1 == 0 && m2 == 0)
     {
       libc_feupdateenv (&env);
-      /* Ensure that round-to-nearest value of z + m1 is not
-	 reused.  */
-      asm volatile ("" : "=m" (z) : "m" (z));
+      /* Ensure that round-to-nearest value of z + m1 is not reused.  */
+      z = math_opt_barrier (z);
       return z + m1;
     }