tra added a comment. In http://reviews.llvm.org/D20341#432494, @hfinkel wrote:
> > That having been said, is this change the equivalent of -ffp-contract=fast or > -ffp-contract=on? I think it is the latter and we want the former (i.e. where > we let the backend be as aggressive as possible *after* inlining). It is -ffp-contract=on. As it happens, it appears to produce better code compared to -ffp-contract=fast at least on some benchmarks. Apparently smaller IR (smaller number of intrinsic call instructions vs multiple separate mul+add) makes job easier for straight line strength reduction pass and it's able to remove more redundant calculations in unrolled loops. http://reviews.llvm.org/D20341 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
