On Wed, Nov 09, 2022 at 02:32:55PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 09, 2022 at 02:14:19PM +0100, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 9, 2022 at 1:48 PM Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Nov 09, 2022 at 08:07:57AM +0100, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
> > > > The PLUS_EXPR was always meant to be a template for further
> > > > development, since most of the binary operators will share a similar
> > > > structure. This patch abstracts out the common bits into the default
> > > > definition for range_operator_float::fold_range() and provides an
> > > > rv_fold() to be implemented by the individual entries wishing to use
> > > > the generic folder. This is akin to what we do with fold_range() and
> > > > wi_fold() in the integer version of range-ops.
> > >
> > > Shouldn't foperator_mult be very similar to this (except that until
> > > division is done op[12]_range can't be implemented), with the exception
> > > that the invalid case isn't -INF + INF or INF + -INF, but
> > > 0 * +/-INF or +/-INF * 0?
> >
> > Multiplication and division are tricky because you have to keep track
> > of signs to order the resulting range. It's the most annoying pattern
> > we have for integers:
>
> Ah, you're right.
> Reminds me of check_for_binary_op_overflow for multiplication.
On the other side, thinking more about it, it should be easier than
integral, because we don't need to deal with unsigned/wrap around and
overflows aren't undefined, but infinities (though I guess we still have
even for +/- the question how actually say PDP floats or ARM non-IEEE
mode __fp16 behave on overflows for floats that don't support infinities,
if it is saturating on HUGE_VAL*/-HUGE_VAL* or wraps around).
So just do the cross products, sort them to create the final range,
clear_nans on it and provide nans the normal way?
Jakub
