2020-10-04 06:17:17 +00:00
|
|
|
# How approximate is Intel's floating-point reciprocal instruction?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2020/10/03
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here's a test Mu program that prints out the bits for 0.5:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
fn main -> r/ebx: int {
|
|
|
|
var two/eax: int <- copy 2
|
|
|
|
var half/xmm0: float <- convert two
|
|
|
|
half <- reciprocal half
|
|
|
|
var mem: float
|
|
|
|
copy-to mem, half
|
|
|
|
var out/eax: int <- reinterpret mem
|
|
|
|
print-int32-hex 0, out
|
|
|
|
print-string 0, "\n"
|
|
|
|
r <- copy 0
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It gives different results when emulated and run natively:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
```
|
2021-03-04 07:24:33 +00:00
|
|
|
$ cd linux
|
|
|
|
$ ./translate_debug x.mu # debug mode = error checking
|
|
|
|
$ bootstrap/bootstrap run a.elf
|
2020-10-04 08:33:49 +00:00
|
|
|
0x3f000000 # correct
|
2020-10-04 06:17:17 +00:00
|
|
|
$ ./a.elf
|
2020-10-04 08:33:49 +00:00
|
|
|
0x3efff000 # wrong
|
2020-10-04 06:17:17 +00:00
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I spent some time digging into this before I realized it wasn't a bug in Mu,
|
|
|
|
just an artifact of the emulator not actually using the `reciprocal` instruction.
|
|
|
|
Here's a procedure you can follow along with to convince yourself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Start with this program (good.c):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
```c
|
|
|
|
#include<stdio.h>
|
|
|
|
int main(void) {
|
|
|
|
int n = 2;
|
|
|
|
float f = 1.0/n;
|
|
|
|
printf("%f\n", f);
|
|
|
|
return 0;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It works as you'd expect (compiling unoptimized to actually compute the
|
|
|
|
division):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
$ gcc good.c
|
|
|
|
$ ./a.out
|
|
|
|
0.5
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Let's look at its Assembly:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
$ gcc -S good.c
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The generated `good.s` has a lot of stuff that doesn't interest us, surrounding
|
|
|
|
these lines:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
```asm
|
|
|
|
; destination
|
|
|
|
movl $2, -8(%rbp)
|
|
|
|
cvtsi2sd -8(%rbp), %xmm0
|
|
|
|
movsd .LC0(%rip), %xmm1
|
|
|
|
divsd %xmm0, %xmm1
|
|
|
|
movapd %xmm1, %xmm0
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This fragment converts `2` into floating-point and then divides 1.0 (the
|
|
|
|
constant `.LC0`) by it, leaving the result in register `xmm0`.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There's a way to get gcc to emit the `rcpss` instruction using intrinsics, but
|
|
|
|
I don't know how to do it, so I'll modify the generated Assembly directly:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
```diff
|
|
|
|
movl $2, -8(%rbp)
|
|
|
|
< cvtsi2sd -8(%rbp), %xmm0
|
|
|
|
< movsd .LC0(%rip), %xmm1
|
|
|
|
< divsd %xmm0, %xmm1
|
|
|
|
< movapd %xmm1, %xmm0
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
> cvtsi2ss -8(%rbp), %xmm0
|
|
|
|
> rcpss %xmm0, %xmm0
|
|
|
|
> movss %xmm0, -4(%rbp)
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Let's compare the result of both versions:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
$ gcc good.s
|
|
|
|
$ ./a.out
|
|
|
|
0.5
|
|
|
|
$ gcc good.modified.s
|
|
|
|
$ ./a.out
|
|
|
|
0.499878
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Whoa!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reading the Intel manual more closely, it guarantees that the relative error
|
|
|
|
of `rcpss` is less than `1.5*2^-12`, and indeed 12 bits puts us squarely in
|
|
|
|
the fourth decimal place.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Among the x86 instructions Mu supports, two are described in the Intel manual
|
|
|
|
as "approximate": `reciprocal` (`rcpss`) and `inverse-square-root` (`rsqrtss`).
|
|
|
|
Intel introduced these instructions as part of its SSE expansion in 1999. When
|
2021-09-13 11:53:38 +00:00
|
|
|
it upgraded SSE to SSE2 (in 2000), most of its scalar[1] single-precision
|
|
|
|
floating-point instructions got upgraded to double-precision — but not
|
|
|
|
these two. So they seem to be an evolutionary dead-end.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[1] Thanks boulos for feedback: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28501429#28507118
|