jcranmer-intel added a comment.
Looking at the attribute logic here, there is conceptual room for both a
`dynamic` and an `unknown` mode (i.e., you get a top and a bottom value), but I
don't think there is value in distinguishing between them, so I'm fine with
keeping just a `dynamic`.
I didn't bother to look at the clang changes, and my only comments are some
minor ones around documentation:
================
Comment at: llvm/docs/LangRef.rst:2166-2167
+
+ If the mode is ``"dynamic"``, transformations which depend on the
+ behavior of denormal values should not be performed.
+
----------------
I feel like the description of this mode should mention that whether or not
denormals are flushed is derived from the dynamic state of the FP environment.
================
Comment at: llvm/docs/LangRef.rst:2174-2178
If the input mode is ``"preserve-sign"``, or ``"positive-zero"``, a
floating-point operation must treat any input denormal value as
zero. In some situations, if an instruction does not respect this
mode, the input may need to be converted to 0 as if by
``@llvm.canonicalize`` during lowering for correctness.
----------------
This isn't your fault, but I noticed when reading the LangRef online that this
paragraph has a slightly-different indentation that causes most of this
attribute's documentation to gain an extra level of indentation.
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
