craig.topper added a comment. In D72906#1826849 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D72906#1826849>, @uweigand wrote:
> In D72906#1826122 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D72906#1826122>, @craig.topper > wrote: > > > In D72906#1826061 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D72906#1826061>, @uweigand > > wrote: > > > > > > The constrained fcmp intrinsics don't allow the TRUE/FALSE predicates. > > > > > > Hmm, maybe they should then? The only reason I didn't add them > > > initially was that I wasn't sure they were useful for anything; if they > > > are, it should be straightforward to add them back. > > > > > > What would we lower it to on a target that doesn’t support it natively? > > > Any supported compare (quiet or signaling as appropriate, just so we get the > correct exceptions), and then ignore the result (and use true/false constant > result instead)? Sure. Is that something we want to force all targets to have to implement just to handle this case for X86? Unless we can come up with a generic DAG combine to pick a valid condition alternate so that the lowering code for each target doesn't have to deal with it. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D72906/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D72906 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
