paperchalice wrote: > I don't remember the example off-hand, but there was a fast-math transform I > wanted at one point that needed a flag on `fptoui`. > > > I don't think we should do this until we have freed up the necessary flag > > space to also support uitofp as well. > > I can see an argument for doing `fptoui` and to `fptosi` without the > inverses, but agreed that `sitofp` without `uitofp` is a bad idea.
PowerPC also need `sitofp/uitofp` with `afn` to allow double rounding. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/160475 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
