Is operator ≤ UB for floating point comparison? [closed] - c

Question

Closed. This question needs details or clarity. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Add details and clarify the problem by editing this post.
Closed 7 years ago.
Improve this question
There are numerous reference on the subject (here or here). However I still fails to understand why the following is not considered UB and properly reported by my favorite compiler (insert clang and/or gcc) with a neat warning:
// f1, f2 and epsilon are defined as double
if ( f1 / f2 <= epsilon )
As per C99:TC3, 5.2.4.2.2 §8: we have:
Except for assignment and cast (which remove all extra range and
precision), the values of operations with floating operands and values
subject to the usual arithmetic conversions and of floating constants
are evaluated to a format whose range and precision may be greater
than required by the type. [...]
Using typical compilation f1 / f2 would be read directly from the FPU. I've tried here using gcc -m32, with gcc 5.2. So f1 / f2 is (over-here) on an 80 bits (just a guess dont have the exact spec here) floating point register. There is not type promotion here (per standard).
I've also tested clang 3.5, this compiler seems to cast the result of f1 / f2 back to a normal 64 bits floating point representation (this is an implementation defined behavior but for my question I prefer the default gcc behavior).
As per my understanding the comparison will be done in between a type for which we don't know the size (ie. format whose range and precision may be greater) and epsilon which size is exactly 64 bits.
What I really find hard to understand is equality comparison with a well known C types (eg. 64bits double) and something whose range and precision may be greater. I would have assumed that somewhere in the standard some kind of promotion would be required (eg. standard would mandates that epsilon would be promoted to a wider floating point type).
So the only legitimate syntaxes should instead be:
if ( (double)(f1 / f2) <= epsilon )
or
double res = f1 / f2;
if ( res <= epsilon )
As a side note, I would have expected the litterature to document only the operator <, in my case:
if ( f1 / f2 < epsilon )
Since it is always possible to compare floating point with different size using operator <.
So in which cases the first expression would make sense ? In other word, how could the standard defines some kind of equality operator in between two floating point representation with different size ?
EDIT: The whole confusion here, was that I assumed it was possible to compare two float of different size. Which cannot possibly happen. (thanks #DevSolar!).

Answer 1

<= is well-defined for all possible floating point values.
There is one exception though: the case when at least one of the arguments is uninitialised. But that's more to do with reading an uninitialised variable being UB; not the <= itself

Answer 2

I think you're confusing implementation-defined with undefined behavior. The C language doesn't mandate IEEE 754, so all floating point operations are essentially implementation-defined. But this is different from undefined behavior.

Answer 3

After a bit of chat, it became clear where the miscommunication came from.
The quoted part of the standard explicitly allows an implementation to use wider formats for floating operands in calculations. This includes, but is not limited to, using the long double format for double operands.
The standard section in question also does not call this "type promotion". It merely refers to a format being used.
So, f1 / f2 may be done in some arbitrary internal format, but without making the result any other type than double.
So when the result is compared (by either <= or the problematic ==) to epsilon, there is no promotion of epsilon (because the result of the division never got a different type), but by the same rule that allowed f1 / f2 to happen in some wider format, epsilon is allowed to be evaluated in that format as well. It is up to the implementation to do the right thing here.
The value of FLT_EVAL_METHOD might tell what exactly an implementation is doing exactly (if set to 0, 1, or 2 respectively), or it might have a negative value, which indicates "indeterminate" (-1) or "implementation-defined", which means "look it up in your compiler manual".
This gives an implementation "wiggle room" to do any kind of funny things with floating operands, as long as at least the range / precision of the actual type is preserved. (Some older FPUs had "wobbly" precisions, depending on the kind of floating operation performed. The quoted part of the standard caters for exactly that.)
In no case may any of this lead to undefined behaviour. Implementation-defined, yes. Undefined, no.

Answer 4

The only case where you would get undefined behavior is when a large floating point variable gets demoted to a smaller one which cannot represent the contents. I don't quite see how that applies in this case.
The text you quote is concerned about whether or not floats may be evaluated as doubles etc, as indicated by the text you unfortunately didn't include in the quote:
The use of evaluation formats is characterized by the
implementation-defined value of FLT_EVAL_METHOD:
-1 indeterminable;
0 evaluate all operations and constants just to the range and precision of the type;
1 evaluate operations and constants of type float and double to the range and precision of the double type, evaluate long double operations and constants to the range and precision of the long double type;
2 evaluate all operations and constants to the range and precision of the long double type.
However, I don't believe this macro overwrites the behavior of the usual arithmetic conversions. The usual arithmetic conversions guarantee that you can never compare two float variables of different size. So I don't see how you could run into undefined behavior here. The only possible issue you would have is performance.
In theory, in case FLT_EVAL_METHOD == 2 then your operands could indeed get evaluated as type long double. But please note that if the compiler allows such implicit promotions to larger types, there will be a reason for it.
According to the text you cited, explicit casting will counter this compiler behavior.
In which case the code if ( (double)(f1 / f2) <= epsilon ) is nonsense. By the time you cast the result of f1 / f2 to double, the calculation is already done and have been carried out on long double. The calculation of the result <= epsilon will however be carried out on double since you forced this with the cast.
To avoid long double entirely, you would have to write the code as:
if ( (double)((double)f1 / (double)f2) <= epsilon )
or to increase readability, preferably:
double div = (double)f1 / (double)f2;
if( (double)div <= (double)epsilon )
But again, code like this does only make sense if you know that there will be implicit promotions, which you wish to avoid to increase performance. In practice, I doubt you'll ever run into that situation, as the compiler is most likely far more capable than the programmer to make such decisions.