kpneal wrote: > > > If strict floating-point semantics are required at this call site, they > > > are are required on every relevant call in this function. It means > > > strictfp is a function attribute. Does anything prevents us from removal > > > strictfp from all call sites? > > > > > > I think that takes us back to @kpneal's history, "Then we found that basic > > blocks were being optimized when they didn't belong to a function so we > > couldn't get to the where the strictfp attribute was located. The solution > > was to add the attribute to every function call." > > It sounds like a transient property, used in very specific cases. We could > return to this problem later, when/if transition to bundles happens.
Revisiting decisions made in the past is, in general, a good thing. Sometimes (frequently?) it doesn't result in any change, but that doesn't make it any less worthwhile. > What about this PR? With it `strictfp` can be used as an indicator of a call > that requires special handling for both constrained functions and calls with > FP bundles, while both coexist. I think efforts to change the rules around the `strictfp` attribute are not warranted at this time. If, in the future, there's a real benefit to changing the rules then we can talk about it then. 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
