spatel added reviewers: cameron.mcinally, mcberg2017, arsenm. spatel added a comment. Herald added a subscriber: wdng.
I like the idea, but I'd be more comfortable reviewing the diffs in stages, so we know that the test coverage for the value tracking calls is good. So I'd prefer if we split this somehow - either by the opcode callers (fadd, fsub, fmul...) or the the FMF analysis (nnan, nsz, ninf). That raises a few questions: 1. Why aren't fdiv and frem included? 2. Can we infer FMF for FP intrinsics/libcalls/select/phi? (follow-on patches) 3. We're moving away from FMF on fcmp (recent step: rGebf9bf2cbc8f <https://reviews.llvm.org/rGebf9bf2cbc8fa68d536e481e370c4ba40ce61a8a>), so is it worth including that change, or can we wait for that part to settle? (Side question may be if/when we're going to allow FMF on fptrunc/fpextend). Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D70488/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D70488 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
