aaron.ballman added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/include/clang/Basic/FPOptions.def:29
OPTION(Float16ExcessPrecision, LangOptions::ExcessPrecisionKind, 2,
FPEvalMethod)
OPTION(BFloat16ExcessPrecision, LangOptions::ExcessPrecisionKind, 2,
FPEvalMethod)
+OPTION(MathErrno, bool, 1, BFloat16ExcessPrecision)
----------------
zahiraam wrote:
> aaron.ballman wrote:
> > Shouldn't this one be `Float16ExcessPrecision`? (Are we missing test
> > coverage that would have caught that?)
> oops! the test would be for the BFloat16ExcessPrecision, right?
Yup -- that can be handled in a separate patch as it doesn't really have much
to do with this one -- just something I noticed as a drive-by.
================
Comment at: clang/include/clang/Basic/LangOptions.h:857
setAllowApproxFuncOverride(!Value);
+ setMathErrnoOverride(Value);
if (Value)
----------------
zahiraam wrote:
> aaron.ballman wrote:
> > Everything else does `!Value`; is it intentional that you're using `Value`
> > instead?
> Yes. I want to set the value of math-errno to the value of the pragma in the
> source.
Hmm, okay. Making sure I understand the logic, please excuse me if this is a
dumb question. :-) So the idea here is that if fp_precise is on, we have to
honor math errno, and if fp_precise is off, we can ignore math errno?
================
Comment at: clang/lib/CodeGen/CGBuiltin.cpp:2297
+
+ // True if we are compiling at -O2 and errno has been disabled
+ // using the '#pragma float_control(precise, off)', and attribute opt-none
----------------
Is the part about `-O2` accurate? We just check not `-O0` in the code.
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D151834/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D151834
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
