On 6/10/24 1:33 AM, Robin Dapp wrote:
But isn't canonicalization of EQ/NE safe, even for IEEE NaN and +-0.0?
target = (a == b) ? x : y
target = (a != b) ? y : x
Are equivalent, even for IEEE IIRC.
Yes, that should be fine. My concern was not that we do a
canonicalization but that we might not do it for some of the
vector cases. In particular when one of the operands is wrapped
in a vec_duplicate and we end up with it first rather than
second.
My general feeling is that the patch is good but I wasn't entirely
sure about all cases (in particular in case we transform something
after expand). That's why I would have liked to see at least some
small test cases for it along with the patch (for the combinations
we don't test yet).
Ah, OK.
Demin, can you some additional test coverage, guided by Robin's concerns
above?
Thanks,
jeff
