bkramer added a comment. In D70488#1753897 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D70488#1753897>, @mcberg2017 wrote:
> For us this would be an impediment as we have math models that want ieee > behavior while relaxing precision. Adding nnan or ninf would obstruct those > choices. Mind elaborating why nnan/ninf are problematic for you? They're supposed to be a hint to the optimizer and can be dropped any time. In D70488#1753832 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D70488#1753832>, @spatel wrote: > I like the idea, but I'd be more comfortable reviewing the diffs in stages, > so we know that the test coverage for the value tracking calls is good. So > I'd prefer if we split this somehow - either by the opcode callers (fadd, > fsub, fmul...) or the the FMF analysis (nnan, nsz, ninf). That raises a few > questions: > > 1. Why aren't fdiv and frem included? We currently cannot infer anything for fdiv/frem in isKnownNeverNaN/Inf so there's no way to test it. > 2. Can we infer FMF for FP intrinsics/libcalls/select/phi? (follow-on patches) Yeah, that's a logical followup > 3. We're moving away from FMF on fcmp (recent step: rGebf9bf2cbc8f > <https://reviews.llvm.org/rGebf9bf2cbc8fa68d536e481e370c4ba40ce61a8a>), so is > it worth including starting from fcmp, or can we wait for that part to > settle? (Side question may be if/when we're going to allow FMF on > fptrunc/fpextend). I'll drop fcmp then and split this up once we know that it's actually a direction we want to pursue. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D70488/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D70488 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
