kpn added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D53157#1303398, @cameron.mcinally wrote:
> If we all agree upon that, then we simply have to treat the functions that > modify the FPEnv, e.g. fesetexcept(...), as barriers. That way it does not > matter if a FENV_ACCESS=OFF function is translated with constrained > intrinsics or not, since nothing can be scheduled around these barriers. I thought we couldn't do barriers. No barriers means no way to prevent code motion and mixing of constrained with non-constrained FP. That was the reason for having all FP in a function be constrained if any of it was. https://reviews.llvm.org/D53157 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
