[M3devel] rounding very large magnitude longreal, time, events?
Jay K
jay.krell at cornell.edu
Wed Sep 4 19:00:51 CEST 2013
> Well, I agree wholeheartedly, yes.
Tony: can we put in range checks on float to int conversions?
I'd be ok with initially:
if float < FIRST(INTEGER) - 1 or float > LAST(INTEGER) + 1
error
The "1" isn't quite right, but "0" is also wrong.
I'd like to see what Java and C# do also (safe/optionally safe languages in good standing).
And then we also have to do something in m3-comm/events to stop it failing on AMD64_NT today and everything else "soon".
- Jay
> To: jay.krell at cornell.edu
> Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2013 09:32:17 -0700
> From: mika at async.caltech.edu
> CC: m3devel at elegosoft.com
> Subject: Re: [M3devel] rounding very large magnitude longreal, time, events?
>
> Jay K writes:
> >--_ab947ec4-5d41-4d75-ba7b-1dd04573736b_
> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
> >Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> >
> >> If I am understanding properly what is going on I think this means your n=
> >ew
> >> Modula-3-to-C compiler is the most reasonably behaving Modula-3 implement=
> >ation.
> >
> >
> >I wish=2C but no=2C it is the same as the others.
>
> I see...
>
> >
> >
> >It is all a bit subtle.
>
> As always...
>
> >
> ...
> >
> >
> >I believe=2C based on what you are saying=2C
> >the frontend should generate range checks before
> >floor/trunc/ceiling.
> >
> >Roughly it should be an error to convert
> >a float < FIRST(INTEGER) or > LAST(INTEGER) to a double.
> >Plus or minus one though.
> >
> >
> >That is=2C
> > FLOOR(LAST(INTEGER) + .99999) is ok.
> > CEILING(FIRST(INTEGER) - .99999) is ok.
> > ROUND(LAST(INTEGER) - .499999) is ok.
> > ROUND(FIRST(INTEGER) + .499999) is ok.
> >=20
> >
> >I'm not sure where "round to even" is=2C so -.5 and +.5 might be ok.
> >
> >
> >Oh wait. It depends on the relative ranges of float and integer.
> >
> >
> >In particular=2C a 53bit mantissa longreal converted to a 32bit integer
> >needs the checks I describe. But a 53bit mantissa converted to
> >a 64bit integer=2C no range check is needed.
> >
> >
> >The frontend has some of those optimizations already -- converting
> >from a smaller range to a larger range needs no check.
> >
> >
> >Agreed? Surely this is not a difficult change?
>
> Well, I agree wholeheartedly, yes.
>
> >Nor particularly inefficient?
> >
> >
> >
> > - Jay
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >> To: jay.krell at cornell.edu
> >> Subject: Re: [M3devel] rounding very large magnitude longreal=2C time=2C =
> >events?
> >> Date: Tue=2C 3 Sep 2013 23:42:12 -0700
> >> From: mika at async.caltech.edu
> >>=20
> >> Jay K writes:
> >> ...
> >> >
> >> >Ok=3D2C so this is three dilemnas/questions/bugs in one.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >http://modula3.elegosoft.com/cm3/doc/reference/complete/html/2_6_10Arith=
> >met=3D
> >> >ic_operations.html
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >ROUND(r) is the nearest integer to r=3D3B ties are broken according to t=
> >he co=3D
> >> >nstant RoundDefault
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >1) How should ROUND be defined? Is Modula-3 adequately safe here?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > What should round of numbers less than FIRST(INTEGER)-1=3D20
> >> > or greater than LAST(INTEGER) + 1 round to?=3D20
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > By the simple definition=3D2C they should round to FIRST(INTEGER)=3D20
> >> > and LAST(INTEGER). But is it safe?
> >> >
> >>=20
> >> No=2C I read the definition as saying "integer"=2C not "INTEGER". That i=
> >s=2C
> >> "integer" is the abstract mathematical concept of an integer=2C not the
> >> Modula-3 data type INTEGER.
> >>=20
> >> I think the intent of the Green Book is that INTEGER should be a range-li=
> >mited
> >> form of integer=2C that is=2C it should behave like an integer as much as=
> > possible=2C
> >> and when the implementation can no longer accomplish that=2C it should si=
> >gnal a=20
> >> runtime error. =20
> >>=20
> >> It happens that many existing implementions of Modula-3=2C as an implemen=
> >tation
> >> restriction=2C do not handle out-of-range situations correctly. Things
> >> such as what you describe SHOULD lead to a runtime error=2C value out of =
> >range.
> >> Some implementations wrap instead=2C but I don't even think that's right.=
> > Of
> >> course it's not as bad as it might be in C where you might be indexing an
> >> array with the incorrectly calculated integer and send your program off i=
> >n
> >> never-never land. In Modula-3 you'll at least get a runtime error at THA=
> >T
> >> point. But it's still not right.
> >>=20
> >> If I am understanding properly what is going on I think this means your n=
> >ew
> >> Modula-3-to-C compiler is the most reasonably behaving Modula-3 implement=
> >ation.
> >>=20
> >> Mika
> > =
> >
> >--_ab947ec4-5d41-4d75-ba7b-1dd04573736b_
> >Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1"
> >Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> >
> ><html>
> ><head>
> ><style><!--
> >.hmmessage P
> >{
> >margin:0px=3B
> >padding:0px
> >}
> >body.hmmessage
> >{
> >font-size: 12pt=3B
> >font-family:Calibri
> >}
> >--></style></head>
> ><body class=3D'hmmessage'><div dir=3D'ltr'>>=3B If I am understanding pro=
> >perly what is going on I think this means your new<br>>=3B Modula-3-to-C =
> >compiler is the most reasonably behaving Modula-3 implementation.<br><br><b=
> >r>I wish=2C but no=2C it is the same as the others.<br><br><br>It is all a =
> >bit subtle.<br><br><br>Here is what I believe happens:<br><br><br>I386_NT: =
> >from any double=2C round will give us<br>some integer=2C a 32bit integer=2C=
> > that can be<br>successfully assigned to this range=2C with or without<br>a=
> > range check.<br><br><br>m3cc: Posix: The values are in range.<br>With or w=
> >ithout a range check=2C the code succeeds.<br>For a "few" more years.<br><b=
> >r><br>C backend: Similar.<br>I'm using the C backend all the time on Darwon=
> >.<br>Again=2C Posix: the values are in range.<br>I386_NT: round will give u=
> >s a 32bit integer and it will "work"<br>AMD64_NT: round gives us a 64bit in=
> >teger=2C the range check fails.<br><br><br>In a "few" years=2C 64bit Posix =
> >systems will fail here.<br>32bit Posix would continue to round to some 32bi=
> >t integer=2C which would then<br>successfully pass into the identical subra=
> >nge -- like I386_NT today.<br><br><br><br>The backends don't add range chec=
> >ks.<br>Mostly or entirely=2C they should not.<br>As long as the frontend kn=
> >ows enough=2C it should do it.<br>The frontend knows the range of INTEGER a=
> >nd at least roughly<br>the range of longreal.<br>Possibly the range of a lo=
> >ngreal is target-dependent and knowledge<br>of it should only exist in the =
> >backend. In reality=2C as long as you ignore VAX=2C<br>roughly everything i=
> >s the same since around the early 1980s.<br><br><br><br>I believe=2C based =
> >on what you are saying=2C<br>the frontend should generate range checks befo=
> >re<br>floor/trunc/ceiling.<br><br>Roughly it should be an error to convert<=
> >br>a float <=3B FIRST(INTEGER) or >=3B LAST(INTEGER) to a double.<br>Pl=
> >us or minus one though.<br><br><br>That is=2C<br> =3BFLOOR(LAST(INTEGER=
> >) + .99999) is ok.<br> =3BCEILING(FIRST(INTEGER) - .99999) is ok.<br>&n=
> >bsp=3BROUND(LAST(INTEGER) - .499999) is ok.<br> =3BROUND(FIRST(INTEGER)=
> > + .499999) is ok.<br> =3B<br><br>I'm not sure where "round to even" is=
> >=2C so -.5 and +.5 might be ok.<br><br><br>Oh wait. It depends on the relat=
> >ive ranges of float and integer.<br><br><br>In particular=2C a 53bit mantis=
> >sa longreal converted to a 32bit integer<br>needs the checks I describe. Bu=
> >t a 53bit mantissa converted to<br>a 64bit integer=2C no range check is nee=
> >ded.<br><br><br>The frontend has some of those optimizations already -- con=
> >verting<br>from a smaller range to a larger range needs no check.<br><br><b=
> >r>Agreed? Surely this is not a difficult change?<br>Nor particularly ineffi=
> >cient?<br><br><br><br> =3B- Jay<br><br><br><br><br><div>>=3B To: jay.=
> >krell at cornell.edu<br>>=3B Subject: Re: [M3devel] rounding very large magn=
> >itude longreal=2C time=2C events?<br>>=3B Date: Tue=2C 3 Sep 2013 23:42:1=
> >2 -0700<br>>=3B From: mika at async.caltech.edu<br>>=3B <br>>=3B Jay K w=
> >rites:<br>>=3B ...<br>>=3B >=3B<br>>=3B >=3BOk=3D2C so this is th=
> >ree dilemnas/questions/bugs in one.<br>>=3B >=3B<br>>=3B >=3B<br>&g=
> >t=3B >=3Bhttp://modula3.elegosoft.com/cm3/doc/reference/complete/html/2_6=
> >_10Arithmet=3D<br>>=3B >=3Bic_operations.html<br>>=3B >=3B<br>>=
> >=3B >=3B<br>>=3B >=3BROUND(r) is the nearest integer to r=3D3B ties a=
> >re broken according to the co=3D<br>>=3B >=3Bnstant RoundDefault<br>>=
> >=3B >=3B<br>>=3B >=3B<br>>=3B >=3B1) How should ROUND be defined?=
> > Is Modula-3 adequately safe here?<br>>=3B >=3B<br>>=3B >=3B<br>>=
> >=3B >=3B What should round of numbers less than FIRST(INTEGER)-1=3D20<br>=
> >>=3B >=3B or greater than LAST(INTEGER) + 1 round to?=3D20<br>>=3B &g=
> >t=3B<br>>=3B >=3B<br>>=3B >=3B By the simple definition=3D2C they s=
> >hould round to FIRST(INTEGER)=3D20<br>>=3B >=3B and LAST(INTEGER). But =
> >is it safe?<br>>=3B >=3B<br>>=3B <br>>=3B No=2C I read the definiti=
> >on as saying "integer"=2C not "INTEGER". That is=2C<br>>=3B "integer" is=
> > the abstract mathematical concept of an integer=2C not the<br>>=3B Modul=
> >a-3 data type INTEGER.<br>>=3B <br>>=3B I think the intent of the Green=
> > Book is that INTEGER should be a range-limited<br>>=3B form of integer=
> >=2C that is=2C it should behave like an integer as much as possible=2C<br>&=
> >gt=3B and when the implementation can no longer accomplish that=2C it shoul=
> >d signal a <br>>=3B runtime error. <br>>=3B <br>>=3B It happens tha=
> >t many existing implementions of Modula-3=2C as an implementation<br>>=3B=
> > restriction=2C do not handle out-of-range situations correctly. Things<br=
> >>>=3B such as what you describe SHOULD lead to a runtime error=2C value o=
> >ut of range.<br>>=3B Some implementations wrap instead=2C but I don't eve=
> >n think that's right. Of<br>>=3B course it's not as bad as it might be i=
> >n C where you might be indexing an<br>>=3B array with the incorrectly cal=
> >culated integer and send your program off in<br>>=3B never-never land. I=
> >n Modula-3 you'll at least get a runtime error at THAT<br>>=3B point. Bu=
> >t it's still not right.<br>>=3B <br>>=3B If I am understanding properly=
> > what is going on I think this means your new<br>>=3B Modula-3-to-C compi=
> >ler is the most reasonably behaving Modula-3 implementation.<br>>=3B <br>=
> >>=3B Mika<br></div> </div></body>
> ></html>=
> >
> >--_ab947ec4-5d41-4d75-ba7b-1dd04573736b_--
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://m3lists.elegosoft.com/pipermail/m3devel/attachments/20130904/462bf6e6/attachment-0002.html>
More information about the M3devel
mailing list