Require .upperBound - .lowerBound be finite for FloatingPoint random #17833
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
…ndom. This is a slightly conservative precondition; when we re-work the FloatingPoint random computation in a more principled fashion, we can relax this to only requiring that .upperBound and .lowerBound are both finite. However, the current computation will break down unless this conservative condition is used, and this is future proof--we will only relax it going forward.
|
@swift-ci please smoke test |
|
CC @Azoy as well |
Azoy
approved these changes
Jul 9, 2018
|
@swift-ci please smoke test |
|
Can you benchmark as well? Curious to see if we get anything interesting here. |
|
@Azoy I expect decent wins at Onone, smaller for O, since the compiler should be able to see through the inlinable calls and replace the |
|
@swift-ci Please benchmark |
|
@swift-ci please benchmark |
1 similar comment
|
@swift-ci please benchmark |
|
@stephentyrone Just doing a drive by to get the benchmarking going. Sometimes if you do a force push, you need to call swift-ci twice. It is a bug in the Jenkins system. |
Build comment file:Build failed before running benchmark. |
|
Love the spurious build failure messages too =) |
Build comment file:Optimized (O)Regression (21)
Improvement (26)
No Changes (411)
Hardware Overview |
Build comment file:Optimized (O)Regression (9)
Improvement (9)
No Changes (440)
Unoptimized (Onone)Regression (4)
Improvement (32)
No Changes (422)
Hardware Overview |
stephentyrone
added a commit
to stephentyrone/swift
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 10, 2018
…wiftlang#17833) This is a slightly conservative precondition; when we re-work the FloatingPoint random computation in a more principled fashion, we can relax this to only requiring that .upperBound and .lowerBound are both finite. However, the current computation will break down unless this conservative condition is used, and this is future proof--we will only relax it going forward.
stephentyrone
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 10, 2018
* [SR-8178] Fix BinaryFloatingPoint.random(in:) open range returning upperBound (#17794) * Require .upperBound - .lowerBound be finite for FloatingPoint random (#17833) This is a slightly conservative precondition; when we re-work the FloatingPoint random computation in a more principled fashion, we can relax this to only requiring that .upperBound and .lowerBound are both finite. However, the current computation will break down unless this conservative condition is used, and this is future proof--we will only relax it going forward.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This is a slightly conservative precondition; when we re-work the FloatingPoint random computation in a more principled fashion, we can relax this to only requiring that .upperBound and .lowerBound are both finite. However, the current computation will break down unless this conservative condition is used, and this is future proof--we will relax it in the future, but any code that works now will continue to work when we do that.