kpn added a comment. We use "dynamic" for the constrained intrinsics. I'd stay consistent with our terminology and stick with "dynamic" here.
I like the amount of testing. You may have gotten every single combination of cases, but I didn't go far enough to check. ================ Comment at: llvm/test/Transforms/Inline/AMDGPU/inline-denormal-fp-math.ll:78 +; CHECK-NEXT: [[CALL:%.*]] = call i32 @func_default() +; CHECK-NEXT: ret i32 [[CALL]] ; ---------------- Are we changing the behavior in a way that may cause regressions? It looks like we've changed behavior in the absence of "dynamic". CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D142907/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D142907 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
