rjmccall added a comment.
In D113107#3736312 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D113107#3736312>, @zahiraam wrote:
> This is a reduced test case from the codegen/complex-strictfp.c
>
> _Complex double g1, g2;
> double D;
>
> void foo(void) {
>
> g1 = g1 + D;
>
> }
>
> The issue is that we are calling in VisitBinAssign the function
> EmitUnpromotion (since promotionTy is null). This creates 2 constrained
> (-ffp-exception-behavior=maytrap used) fptrunc instructions. The verifier for
> Intrinsic::experimental_constrained_fptrunc fails at this check:
> https://github.com/intel/llvm/blob/sycl/llvm/lib/IR/Verifier.cpp#L5885
> Is the call for EmitUnpromotion at the right place? Or should VisitBinAssign
> be treated the same way than the operator of HANDLEBINOP? Since in this case
> we are in the unpromoted path, we don't really need to add those fptrunc? Any
> thoughts?
If `VisitBinAssign` isn't opting to promoted emission (by calling
`EmitPromoted...`), it shouldn't have to call `EmitUnpromotion`; it should be
able to rely on getting appropriate values for the type of its operands.
That's what I mean by a strong postcondition. So yeah, if you added a call to
`EmitUnpromotion` there as a workaround at some point, you should take it out.
If that breaks tests, it's because some emitter is leaking promoted values out
of the normal emission path, and we need to fix that emitter.
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D113107/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D113107
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
