Clever -- roughly the same number of instructions too!

Credit to@markshannon for figuring this out. I had tried something similar (with>= and<=), but couldn't get the masks to work correctly without his help.

This is potentially a bit dangerous: a comparison with NaN may raise FE_INVALID. It may be safer to use theisless macro instead.

From C99 (§7.12.14.3):

The isless macro determines whether its first argument is less than its second argument. The value of isless(x, y) is always equal to (x) < (y); however, unlike (x) < (y), isless(x, y) does not raise the ‘‘invalid’’ floating-point exception when x and y are unordered.

Sorry, that should beislessequal of course, notisless.

float_richcompare uses simplei < j comparisons. Why is that OK, but not here?

@brandtbucher No, not specific to signalling NaNs, just to comparisons involving NaNs. And yes,float_richcompare should be updated to use the safer code, now that we're allowed to depend on C99 features.

Okay. I'll merge this, and create a separate issue where we can discuss how/if we should avoid potential floating-point exceptions everywhere (since that seems like a much bigger change).

And yes, it's platform-specific. I think we're in a place now where all current platforms do the "right" thing, but that wasn't always the case. There were a few related issues in the past -#81655 is the only one I'm finding right now, though. So yes, probably a non-issue at this point.

create a separate issue

Thanks. Don't worry about this, though - I think I'm fussing about things that were historically an issue, but are no longer. It's not that long ago that wedid protect all floating-point operations, e.g., here'sfloat_richcompare in Python 2.7:

But it seems that all current platforms do follow the IEEE 754 standard's advice on "default" floating-point exception handling settings, so this is something we no longer need to worry about.

(FTR, it looks like Python 3.9 is where we discarded thePyFPE_START_PROTECT /PyFPE_END_PROTECT guards everywhere. They're still present in 3.8.)

I was skeptical of this at first, since I had thought about this as "use_Py_SwappedOp[op]", which would be wrong. But this looks correct -- it only swaps which branch to take.

Yep. The swapped ops used to be each others' bitwise inversions. That's no longer the case for the "unordered" bit, since NaNs only care if the operation is!= or not.