cameron.mcinally added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D53157#1304880, @hfinkel wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D53157#1304873, @cameron.mcinally wrote: > > > I'd like to hear more about this. The fesetexcept(...) function and friends > > change the FPEnv state, which can change the semantics for the instructions > > that follow. They definitely have to act as a barrier. > > > There's no sense in which we can have a code-motion barrier within a function > that acts on the regular FP instructions. We can have a barrier for the > constrained intrinsics. This is why we need, in this design, for any function > that uses FENV_ACCESS=ON for any part of it, to always use the constrained > instrinsics. Thanks. Ulrich's description helped me see the problem. https://reviews.llvm.org/D53157 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
