rjmccall added a comment. In D62731#1782897 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D62731#1782897>, @andrew.w.kaylor wrote:
> In D62731#1782762 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D62731#1782762>, @rjmccall wrote: > > > Currently we emit a warning if you use `-frounding-math`, saying that the > > option is ignored. That should have alerted users that they're not getting > > the correct behavior now. This patch removes the warning and (IIUC) > > implements the correct behavior but is over-conservative. If that's > > correct, I think that's acceptable and we don't need an "experimental" flag > > or a warning. > > > Oh, I didn't realize we were already warning about that. In theory, we should > handle rounding math correctly with this change. It's possible we've missed > some things, but I suppose that's always true. I think there are a few > general intrinsics left that need constrained versions but don't have them, > and we don't have any solution yet for target-specific intrinsics. If any of > those have special handling that assumes the default rounding mode we will > get it wrong. I don't think most users would be likely to encounter a problem. Hmm. The target-specific intrinsics thing does concern me, since I assume many targets have a bunch of vector intrinsics that may be sensitive to rounding. Do we have an idea of how we'd fix that? If it's a short-term incorrectness that we have a plan to fix, I don't mind the risk, but if we don't know how we'd even start to address it... Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D62731/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D62731 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
