Float operation difference in C vs C++ [closed]

Question

Solution

Thanks to @Michael Veksler 's answer, I was put on the right track to search for a solution. @Christoph, in this post, suggests trying different compiler flags to set the precision of the floating-point operations.

For me, the -mpc32 flag solved the problem.

---

I have to translate C++ code to C code as the new target won't have a C++ compiler. I am running into a strange thing, where a mathematical equation gives different results when run in a C program compared to when run in a C++ program.

Equation:

float result = (float)(a+b-c+d+e);

The elements of the equation are all floats. I check the contents of the memory of each element by using

printf("a : 0x%02X%02X%02X%02X\n",((unsigned char*)&a)[0],((unsigned char*)&a)[1],((unsigned char*)&a)[2],((unsigned char*)&a)[3]);

Both in C and in C++, a b c d and e are equal, but the results are different.

Sample of a calculation in C:

a : 0x1D9969BB
b : 0x6CEDC83E
c : 0xAC89452F
d : 0xD2DC92B3
e : 0x4FE9F23C
result : 0xCD48D63E

And a sample in C++:

a : 0x1D9969BB
b : 0x6CEDC83E
c : 0xAC89452F
d : 0xD2DC92B3
e : 0x4FE9F23C
result : 0xCC48D63E

When I separate the equation in smaller parts, as in r = a + b then r = r - c and so on, the results are equal. I have a 64-bit Windows machine.

Can someone explain why this happens? I am sorry for this noob question, I am just starting out.

EDIT

I use the latest version of MinGW with options

-O0 -g3 -Wall -c -fmessage-length=0

EDIT 2

Sorry for the long time...

Here are the values corresponding to the above hex ones in C:

a : -0.003564424114301801
b : 0.392436385154724120
c : 0.000000000179659565
d : -0.000000068388217755
e : 0.029652265831828117
r : 0.418524175882339480

And here are for C++:

a : -0.003564424114301801
b : 0.392436385154724120
c : 0.000000000179659565
d : -0.000000068388217755
e : 0.029652265831828117
r : 0.418524146080017090

They are printed like printf("a : %.18f\n",a);

The values are not known at compile time, the equation is in a function called multiple times throughout the execution. The elements of the equation are computed inside the function.

Also, I observed a strange thing: I ran the exact equation in a new "pure" project (for both C and C++), i.e. only the main itself. The values of the elements are the same as the ones above (in float). The result is r : 0xD148D63E for both. The same as in @geza 's comment.

Answer 1

Introduction: Given that the question is not detailed enough, I am left to speculate the infamous gcc's 323 bug. As the low bug-ID suggests, this bug has been there forever. The bug report existed since June 2000, currently has 94 (!) duplicates, and the last one reported only half a year ago (on 2018-08-28). The bug affects only 32 bit executable on Intel computers (like cygwin). I assume that OP's code uses x87 floating point instructions, which are the default for 32 bit executables, while SSE instructions are only optional. Since 64 bit executables are more prevalent than 32, and no longer depend on x87 instructions, this bug has zero chance of ever being fixed.

Bug description: The x87 architecture has 80 bit floating point registers. The float requires only 32 bits. The bug is that x87 floating point operations are always done with 80 bits accuracy (subject to hardware configuration flag). This extra accuracy makes precision very flaky, because it depends on when the registers are being spilled (written) to memory.

If a 80 bit register is spilled into a 32 bit variable in memory, then extra precision is lost. This is the correct behavior if this happened after each floating point operation (since float is supposed to be 32 bits). However, spilling to memory slows things down and no compiler writer wants the executable to run slow. So by default the values are not spilled to memory.

Now, sometimes the value is spilled to memory and sometimes it is not. It depends on optimization level, on compiler heuristics, and on other seemingly random factors. Even with -O0 there could be slightly different strategies for dealing with spilling the x87 registers to memory, resulting in slightly different results. The strategy of spilling is probably the difference between your C and C++ compilers that you experience.

Work around: For ways to handle this, please read c handling of excess precision. Try running your compiler with -fexcess-precision=standard and compare it with -fexcess-precision=fast. You can also try playing with -mfpmath=sse.

NOTE: According to the C++ standard this is not really a bug. However, it is a bug according to the documentation of GCC which claims to follow the IEEE-754 FP standard on Intel architectures (like it does on many other architectures). Obviously bug 323 violates the IEE-754 standard.

NOTE 2: On some optimization levels -fast-math is invoked, and all bets are off regarding to extra precision and evaluation order.

EDIT I have simulated the described behavior on an intel 64-bit system, and got the same results as the OP. Here is the code:

int main()
{
    float a = hex2float(0x1D9969BB);
    float b = hex2float(0x6CEDC83E);
    float c = hex2float(0xAC89452F);
    float d = hex2float(0xD2DC92B3);
    float e = hex2float(0x4FE9F23C);
    float result = (float)((double)a+b-c+d+e);
    print("result", result);
    result = flush(flush(flush(flush(a+b)-c)+d)+e);
    print("result2", result);
} 

The implementations of the support functions:

float hex2float(uint32_t num)
{
    uint32_t rev = (num >> 24) | ((num >> 8) & 0xff00) | ((num << 8) & 0xff0000) | (num << 24);
    float f;
    memcpy(&f, &rev, 4);
    return f;
}
void print(const char* label, float val)
{
    printf("%10s (%13.10f) : 0x%02X%02X%02X%02X\n", label, val, ((unsigned char*)&val)[0],((unsigned char*)&val)[1],((unsigned char*)&val)[2],((unsigned char*)&val)[3]);
}
float flush(float x)
{
    volatile float buf = x;
    return buf;
}

After running this I have got exactly the same difference between the results:

  result ( 0.4185241461) : 0xCC48D63E
 result2 ( 0.4185241759) : 0xCD48D63E

For some reason this is different than the "pure" version described at the question. At one point I was also getting the same results as the "pure" version, but since then the question has changed. The original values in the original question were different. They were:

float a = hex2float(0x1D9969BB);
float b = hex2float(0x6CEDC83E);
float c = hex2float(0xD2DC92B3);
float d = hex2float(0xA61FD930);
float e = hex2float(0x4FE9F23C);

and with these values the resulting output is:

   result ( 0.4185242951) : 0xD148D63E
  result2 ( 0.4185242951) : 0xD148D63E