@@ -0,0 +1,269 @@
+// NOTE: Assertions have been autogenerated by utils/update_cc_test_checks.py
UTC_ARGS: --version 5
+// RUN: %clang_cc1 -disable-llvm-passes -O3 -triple x86_64 %s -emit-llvm -o -
| FileCheck %s --check-prefix=CHECK
+
+typedef _Float16 half8 __attribute__((ext_
https://github.com/wzssyqa updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/129207
>From 917e3b80ae7962a4f0bd5735cdc88163fcdbdcc7 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: YunQiang Su
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2025 16:09:04 +0800
Subject: [PATCH 1/2] Clang: Add minnum/maxnum builtin functions support
With https
https://github.com/wzssyqa created
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/129207
With https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/112852, we claimed that
llvm.minnum and llvm.maxnum should treat +0.0>-0.0, while libc doesn't require
fmin(3)/fmax(3) for it.
To make llvm.minnum/llvm.maxnum eas
@@ -209,6 +209,18 @@ def FmaxF16F128 : Builtin, F16F128MathTemplate {
let Prototype = "T(T, T)";
}
+def MinNum : Builtin {
wzssyqa wrote:
I prefer to drop it. Since we don't provide the function name without
__builtin, such as `fmimnum`.
https://github.c
@@ -209,6 +209,18 @@ def FmaxF16F128 : Builtin, F16F128MathTemplate {
let Prototype = "T(T, T)";
}
+def MinNum : Builtin {
arsenm wrote:
Should the keep the f prefix convention? I suppose we aren't following a libm
function, so it might make sense to drop
llvmbot wrote:
@llvm/pr-subscribers-clang-codegen
Author: YunQiang Su (wzssyqa)
Changes
With https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/112852, we claimed that
llvm.minnum and llvm.maxnum should treat +0.0>-0.0, while libc doesn't
require fmin(3)/fmax(3) for it.
To make llvm.minnum/llvm.
https://github.com/wzssyqa edited
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/129207
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
