andykaylor wrote: > It seems a bit confusing to me to create a situation where `-ffast-math` is > equivalent to `-ffp-model=aggressive`, not `-ffp-model=fast`.
I can understand that, but the problem I'm trying to fix is that the naming of fast-math options we inherited from gcc is counter-intuitive. Do you want "fast math" or "unsafe math"? Which one sounds riskier? This is a lot like the `-Ofast` problem. I'm not sure consistency with the gcc option naming is a good thing. My goal here is to have two options, one with a moderate approach to fast-math optimizations and one with a more aggressive approach. I'm not particular attached to the naming I have proposed here. Historically (for almost 20 years), the Intel compilers have supported this using `-fp-model fast[=1]` and `-fp-model fast=2`. I don't like that naming, so I attempted something I thought was better when proposing the same sort of split for clang. Do you have a suggestion for better names? How about "fast" and "useful"? ;-) https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/100453 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
