-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 31k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
GH-90043: Handle NaNs in COMPARE_OP_FLOAT_JUMP
#100278
Changes from all commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
@@ -0,0 +1,2 @@ | ||
Handle NaNs when specializing :opcode:`COMPARE_OP` for :class:`float` | ||
values. |
Some generated files are not rendered by default. Learn more about how customized files appear on GitHub.
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
|
@@ -1938,15 +1938,16 @@ compare_op_fail_kind(PyObject *lhs, PyObject *rhs) | |
|
||
|
||
static int compare_masks[] = { | ||
// 1-bit: jump if less than | ||
// 2-bit: jump if equal | ||
// 1-bit: jump if unordered | ||
// 2-bit: jump if less | ||
// 4-bit: jump if greater | ||
[Py_LT] = 1 | 0 | 0, | ||
[Py_LE] = 1 | 2 | 0, | ||
[Py_EQ] = 0 | 2 | 0, | ||
[Py_NE] = 1 | 0 | 4, | ||
[Py_GT] = 0 | 0 | 4, | ||
[Py_GE] = 0 | 2 | 4, | ||
// 8-bit: jump if equal | ||
[Py_LT] = 0 | 2 | 0 | 0, | ||
[Py_LE] = 0 | 2 | 0 | 8, | ||
[Py_EQ] = 0 | 0 | 0 | 8, | ||
[Py_NE] = 1 | 2 | 4 | 0, | ||
[Py_GT] = 0 | 0 | 4 | 0, | ||
[Py_GE] = 0 | 0 | 4 | 8, | ||
}; | ||
|
||
void | ||
|
@@ -1967,7 +1968,7 @@ _Py_Specialize_CompareOp(PyObject *lhs, PyObject *rhs, _Py_CODEUNIT *instr, | |
assert(oparg <= Py_GE); | ||
int when_to_jump_mask = compare_masks[oparg]; | ||
if (next_opcode == POP_JUMP_IF_FALSE) { | ||
when_to_jump_mask = (1 | 2 | 4) & ~when_to_jump_mask; | ||
when_to_jump_mask = (1 | 2 | 4 | 8) & ~when_to_jump_mask; | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. I was skeptical of this at first, since I had thought about this as "use There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Yep. The swapped ops used to be each others' bitwise inversions. That's no longer the case for the "unordered" bit, since NaNs only care if the operation is |
||
} | ||
if (Py_TYPE(lhs) != Py_TYPE(rhs)) { | ||
SPECIALIZATION_FAIL(COMPARE_OP, compare_op_fail_kind(lhs, rhs)); | ||
|
@@ -1996,7 +1997,7 @@ _Py_Specialize_CompareOp(PyObject *lhs, PyObject *rhs, _Py_CODEUNIT *instr, | |
} | ||
else { | ||
_py_set_opcode(instr, COMPARE_OP_STR_JUMP); | ||
cache->mask = (when_to_jump_mask & 2) == 0; | ||
cache->mask = (when_to_jump_mask & 8) == 0; | ||
goto success; | ||
} | ||
} | ||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Clever -- roughly the same number of instructions too!
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Credit to @markshannon for figuring this out. I had tried something similar (with
>=
and<=
), but couldn't get the masks to work correctly without his help.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This is potentially a bit dangerous: a comparison with NaN may raise FE_INVALID. It may be safer to use the
isless
macro instead.From C99 (§7.12.14.3):
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Sorry, that should be
islessequal
of course, notisless
.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
float_richcompare
uses simplei < j
comparisons. Why is that OK, but not here?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@brandtbucher No, not specific to signalling NaNs, just to comparisons involving NaNs. And yes,
float_richcompare
should be updated to use the safer code, now that we're allowed to depend on C99 features.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Okay. I'll merge this, and create a separate issue where we can discuss how/if we should avoid potential floating-point exceptions everywhere (since that seems like a much bigger change).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
And yes, it's platform-specific. I think we're in a place now where all current platforms do the "right" thing, but that wasn't always the case. There were a few related issues in the past - #81655 is the only one I'm finding right now, though. So yes, probably a non-issue at this point.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks. Don't worry about this, though - I think I'm fussing about things that were historically an issue, but are no longer. It's not that long ago that we did protect all floating-point operations, e.g., here's
float_richcompare
in Python 2.7:cpython/Objects/floatobject.c
Lines 600 to 621 in ca079a3
But it seems that all current platforms do follow the IEEE 754 standard's advice on "default" floating-point exception handling settings, so this is something we no longer need to worry about.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
(FTR, it looks like Python 3.9 is where we discarded the
PyFPE_START_PROTECT
/PyFPE_END_PROTECT
guards everywhere. They're still present in 3.8.)