hfinkel added a comment.
In http://reviews.llvm.org/D20341#432525, @tra wrote: > 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. That's certainly interesting, and frankly, something I don't immediately understand. Given that, at that level, the IR for -ffo-contract=fast is the same as -ffp-contract=off, this seems to point to some more-general problem that we should likely fix anyway. I will say that, once templated C++ libraries become involved, the per-statement C rules for fusion often don't apply in enough places to be useful. You really need to perform the fusion after inlining. Obviously, however, for more-directly-programmed expressions, this concern does not apply. http://reviews.llvm.org/D20341 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
