michele.scandale added a comment. In D72841#2030707 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D72841#2030707>, @rjmccall wrote:
> IIUC, the way within-statement contraction is supposed to work is that there > are supposed to be blocking intrinsics inserted at various places. I don't > remember the details, though, or if anyone's thought about how it interacts > with cross-statement contraction, which this pragma permits within the same > function (and could occur with inlining regardless). Prior to this change `contract` was never generated in the case of in-statement contraction only, instead clang was emitting `llvm.fmuladd` to inform the backend that only those were eligible for contraction. From a correctness perspective I think this was perfectly fine. Currently I don't see any logic to generate "blocking intrinsics" (I guess to define a region around the instructions emitted for the given statement). Until such mechanism is in place, I think that generating the `contract` fast-math flag also for in-statement contraction is wrong because it breaks the original program semantic. Am I missing something? Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D72841/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D72841 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
