I'd in general expect good C code to optimize a little better; and in
particular, decomposing an IEEE float is almost certainly more expensive in
Haskell than in C, because unions let you cheat. (And I recall looking at
the implementation of decodeFloat once; it's significantly longer than that
C.) But I have to wonder if that code would be better done with something
more native; the implementation may be a portable default, and you might be
able to find something x86-specific that is faster.
On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 5:35 AM, Mateusz Kowalczyk <fuuze...@fuuzetsu.co.uk>
wrote:
> On 03/05/2018 10:23 PM, Brandon Allbery wrote:
> > If the FFI version is done with "safe", consider using "unsafe" instead.
> > There are technical reasons why this is slightly incorrect, but unless
> > you're fiddling with the CPU's FP control flags they're mostly irrelevant
> > and you can treat isNaN as pure and non-side-effectful, significantly
> > reducing the overhead. You may also be able to use "ccall" to take
> > advantage of C compiler level optimizations, or simply to directly
> invoke a
> > CPU-based test with asm(); but you'll need to hide that in a C
> preprocessor
> > #define, so that it looks syntactically like a function call to the FFI.
> >
> > (One of the technical reasons is that various OSes have been known to
> > introduce bugs in their FP register and state handling across system
> calls,
> > in which case the "safe" version may turn "complete FP chaos" into merely
> > "wrong answer". It's your call whether, or which side, of this bothers
> you.)
>
> Perhaps I was a little unclear. The FFI-using isDoubleNaN is something
> GHC does!
>
> ```
> libraries/base/GHC/Float.hs:foreign import ccall unsafe "isDoubleNaN"
> isDoubleNaN :: Double -> Int
> ```
> ```
> HsInt
> isDoubleNaN(HsDouble d)
> {
> union stg_ieee754_dbl u;
>
> u.d = d;
>
> return (
> u.ieee.exponent == 2047 /* 2^11 - 1 */ && /* Is the exponent all
> ones? */
> (u.ieee.mantissa0 != 0 || u.ieee.mantissa1 != 0)
> /* and the mantissa non-zero? */
> );
> }
> ```
>
> My question is whether it could do better by not doing FFI and instead
> computing natively and if not, why not?
>
> > On Mon, Mar 5, 2018 at 4:53 PM, Mateusz Kowalczyk <
> fuuze...@fuuzetsu.co.uk>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> Recently at a client I was profiling some code and isDoubleNaN lit up.
> >> We were checking a lot of doubles for NaN as that's what customer would
> >> send in.
> >>
> >> I went to investigate and I found that FFI is used to achieve this. I
> >> was always under the impression that FFI costs a little. I had at the
> >> time replaced the code with a hack with great results:
> >>
> >> ```
> >> isNaN' :: Double -> Bool
> >> isNaN' d = d /= d
> >> ```
> >>
> >> While this worked and provided good speedup in my case, this fails
> >> catastrophically if the program is compiled with -ffast-math. This is
> >> expected. I have since reverted it. Seeking an alternative solution I
> >> have thought about re-implementing the C code with a native Haskell
> >> version: after all it just checks a few bits. Apparently unsafeCoerce#
> >> and friends were a big no-no but I found
> >> https://phabricator.haskell.org/D3358 . I have implemented the code at
> >> the bottom of this post. Obviously it's missing endianness (compile-time
> >> switch).
> >>
> >> This seems to be faster for smaller `mkInput` list than Prelude.isNaN
> >> but slower slightly on the one below. The `/=` version is the fastest
> >> but very fragile.
> >>
> >> My question to you all is whether implementing a version of this
> >> function in Haskell makes sense and if not, why not? The
> >> stgDoubleToWord64 is implemented in CMM and I don't know anything about
> >> the costs of that.
> >>
> >> * Is there a cheaper alternative to FFI way?
> >> * If yes, does anyone know how to write it such that it compiles to same
> >> code but without the call overhead? I must have failed below as it's
> >> slower on some inputs.
> >>
> >> Basically if a faster way exists for isNaN, something I have to do a
> >> lot, I'd love to hear about it.
> >>
> >> I leave you with basic code I managed to come up with. 8.4.x only.
> >>
> >>
> >> ```
> >> {-# LANGUAGE MagicHash #-}
> >> {-# OPTIONS_GHC -O2 -ddump-simpl -ddump-stg -ddump-to-file -ddump-asm
> #-}
> >> module Main (main) where
> >>
> >> import GHC.Float
> >> import GHC.Prim
> >>
> >> isNaN' :: Double -> Bool
> >> isNaN' d = d /= d
> >>
> >> isNaNBits :: Double -> Bool
> >> isNaNBits (D# d) = case (bits `and#` expMask) `eqWord#` expMask of
> >> 1# -> case bits `and#` mantissaMask of
> >> 0## -> False
> >> _ -> True
> >> _ -> False
> >> where
> >> bits :: Word#
> >> bits = stgDoubleToWord64 d
> >>
> >> expMask, mantissaMask :: Word#
> >> expMask = 0x7FF0000000000000##
> >> mantissaMask = 0x000FFFFFFFFFFFFF##
> >>
> >> main :: IO ()
> >> main = sumFilter isNaN {-isNaN'-} {-isNaNBits-} (mkInput 100000000)
> >> `seq` pure ()
> >> where
> >> nan :: Double
> >> nan = log (-1)
> >>
> >> mkInput :: Int -> [Double]
> >> mkInput n = take n $ cycle [1, nan]
> >>
> >> sumFilter :: (Double -> Bool) -> [Double] -> Double
> >> sumFilter p = Prelude.sum . Prelude.filter (not . p)
> >> ```
> >>
> >> --
> >> Mateusz K.
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> ghc-devs mailing list
> >> ghc-devs@haskell.org
> >> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Mateusz K.
>
--
brandon s allbery kf8nh sine nomine associates
allber...@gmail.com ballb...@sinenomine.net
unix, openafs, kerberos, infrastructure, xmonad http://sinenomine.net
_______________________________________________
ghc-devs mailing list
ghc-devs@haskell.org
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
