(defun bound-func (f x)
(declare (type function f))
(and x
- (with-float-traps-masked (:underflow :overflow :inexact :divide-by-zero)
- ;; With these traps masked, we might get things like infinity
- ;; or negative infinity returned. Check for this and return
- ;; NIL to indicate unbounded.
- (let ((y (funcall f (type-bound-number x))))
- (if (and (floatp y)
- (float-infinity-p y))
- nil
- (set-bound y (consp x)))))))
+ (handler-case
+ (with-float-traps-masked (:underflow :overflow :inexact :divide-by-zero)
+ ;; With these traps masked, we might get things like infinity
+ ;; or negative infinity returned. Check for this and return
+ ;; NIL to indicate unbounded.
+ (let ((y (funcall f (type-bound-number x))))
+ (if (and (floatp y)
+ (float-infinity-p y))
+ nil
+ (set-bound y (consp x)))))
+ ;; Some numerical operations will signal SIMPLE-TYPE-ERROR, e.g.
+ ;; in the course of converting a bignum to a float. Default to
+ ;; NIL in that case.
+ (simple-type-error ()))))
(defun safe-double-coercion-p (x)
(or (typep x 'double-float)
(defun safe-single-coercion-p (x)
(or (typep x 'single-float)
- ;; Fix for bug 420, and related issues: during type derivation we often
- ;; end up deriving types for both
- ;;
- ;; (some-op <int> <single>)
- ;; and
- ;; (some-op (coerce <int> 'single-float) <single>)
- ;;
- ;; or other equivalent transformed forms. The problem with this is that
- ;; on some platforms like x86 (+ <int> <single>) is on the machine level
- ;; equivalent of
- ;;
- ;; (coerce (+ (coerce <int> 'double-float)
- ;; (coerce <single> 'double-float))
- ;; 'single-float)
- ;;
- ;; so if the result of (coerce <int> 'single-float) is not exact, the
- ;; derived types for the transformed forms will have an empty
- ;; intersection -- which in turn means that the compiler will conclude
- ;; that the call never returns, and all hell breaks lose when it *does*
- ;; return at runtime. (This affects not just +, but other operators are
- ;; well.)
- (and (not (typep x `(or (integer * (,most-negative-exactly-single-float-fixnum))
- (integer (,most-positive-exactly-single-float-fixnum) *))))
- (<= most-negative-single-float x most-positive-single-float))))
+ (and
+ ;; Fix for bug 420, and related issues: during type derivation we often
+ ;; end up deriving types for both
+ ;;
+ ;; (some-op <int> <single>)
+ ;; and
+ ;; (some-op (coerce <int> 'single-float) <single>)
+ ;;
+ ;; or other equivalent transformed forms. The problem with this
+ ;; is that on x86 (+ <int> <single>) is on the machine level
+ ;; equivalent of
+ ;;
+ ;; (coerce (+ (coerce <int> 'double-float)
+ ;; (coerce <single> 'double-float))
+ ;; 'single-float)
+ ;;
+ ;; so if the result of (coerce <int> 'single-float) is not exact, the
+ ;; derived types for the transformed forms will have an empty
+ ;; intersection -- which in turn means that the compiler will conclude
+ ;; that the call never returns, and all hell breaks lose when it *does*
+ ;; return at runtime. (This affects not just +, but other operators are
+ ;; well.)
+ ;;
+ ;; See also: SAFE-CTYPE-FOR-SINGLE-COERCION-P
+ ;;
+ ;; FIXME: If we ever add SSE-support for x86, this conditional needs to
+ ;; change.
+ #!+x86
+ (not (typep x `(or (integer * (,most-negative-exactly-single-float-fixnum))
+ (integer (,most-positive-exactly-single-float-fixnum) *))))
+ (<= most-negative-single-float x most-positive-single-float))))
;;; Apply a binary operator OP to two bounds X and Y. The result is
;;; NIL if either is NIL. Otherwise bound is computed and the result
((zerop (type-bound-number y))
;; Divide by zero means result is infinity
nil)
- ((and (numberp x) (zerop x))
- ;; Zero divided by anything is zero.
- x)
(t
(bound-binop / x y)))))
(let ((top-range (interval-range-info top))
(multiple-value-setq (m shift2)
(choose-multiplier (/ y (ash 1 shift1))
(- precision shift1))))
- (if (>= m n)
- (flet ((word (x)
- `(truly-the word ,x)))
- `(let* ((num x)
- (t1 (%multiply num ,(- m n))))
- (ash ,(word `(+ t1 (ash ,(word `(- num t1))
- -1)))
- ,(- 1 shift2))))
- `(ash (%multiply (logandc2 x ,(1- (ash 1 shift1))) ,m)
- ,(- (+ shift1 shift2))))))))
+ (cond ((>= m n)
+ (flet ((word (x)
+ `(truly-the word ,x)))
+ `(let* ((num x)
+ (t1 (%multiply-high num ,(- m n))))
+ (ash ,(word `(+ t1 (ash ,(word `(- num t1))
+ -1)))
+ ,(- 1 shift2)))))
+ ((and (zerop shift1) (zerop shift2))
+ (let ((max (truncate max-x y)))
+ ;; Explicit TRULY-THE needed to get the FIXNUM=>FIXNUM
+ ;; VOP.
+ `(truly-the (integer 0 ,max)
+ (%multiply-high x ,m))))
+ (t
+ `(ash (%multiply-high (logandc2 x ,(1- (ash 1 shift1))) ,m)
+ ,(- (+ shift1 shift2)))))))))
;;; If the divisor is constant and both args are positive and fit in a
;;; machine word, replace the division by a multiplication and possibly