kpneal wrote: > To handle the case where a block isn't owned by a function, we need the > attribute at the call site. I don't know the specifics of how that case > arises, but if we remove the attribute from the call site, we would have to > do something to add it again when the block gets detached from the function > (possibly during cloning?).
And then remove it again when reinserting the BB into a function body? That sounds like a complication, said complication may be missed by someone in the future who isn't focused on FP, and I haven't yet heard a reason we need all of this. @spavloff -- Why do we need to change how we handle the strictfp attribute? What's the benefit? https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/122735 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
