Summary:
Currently we return undef, but we're in the process of changing the
LangRef so that llvm.sqrt behaves like the other math intrinsics,
matching the return value of the standard libcall but not setting errno.
This change is legal even without the LangRef change because currently
calling llvm.sqrt(x) where x is negative is spec'ed to be UB. But in
practice it's also safe because we're simply constant-folding fewer
inputs: Inputs >= -0 get constant-folded as before, but inputs < -0 now
aren't constant-folded, because ConstantFoldFP aborts if the host math
function raises an fp exception.
Reviewers: hfinkel, efriedma, sanjoy
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28929
llvm-svn: 292692
As discussed here:
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20140609/220598.html
And again here:
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2014-September/077168.html
The sqrt of a negative number when using the llvm intrinsic is undefined.
We should return undef rather than 0.0 to match the definition in the LLVM IR lang ref.
This change should not affect any code that isn't using "no-nans-fp-math";
ie, no-nans is a requirement for generating the llvm intrinsic in place of a sqrt function call.
Unfortunately, the behavior introduced by this patch will not match current gcc, xlc, icc, and
possibly other compilers. The current clang/llvm behavior of returning 0.0 doesn't either.
We knowingly approve of this difference with the other compilers in an attempt to flag code
that is invoking undefined behavior.
A front-end warning should also try to convince the user that the program will fail:
http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=21093
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D5527
llvm-svn: 218803
Simon Pilgrim