mibintc added a comment. In D62731#1603030 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D62731#1603030>, @kpn wrote:
> I actually don't have much of an opinion on what the command line argument > form should be. It may be helpful for it to be the same as one of the > commonly deployed compilers. The worst I think would be pretty close but with > subtle differences. So if it can be made to work like Intel's compiler I'm > fine with that. But I'm hoping that more people in the community chime in > since having a consensus would be best. Personally, I'm not yet giving any > final sign-offs to tickets since I don't think I've been here long enough. > > As far as the rounding metadata argument, the language reference says this: > > > For values other than “round.dynamic” optimization passes may assume that > > the actual runtime rounding mode (as defined in a target-specific manner) > > matches the specified rounding mode, but this is not guaranteed. Using a > > specific non-dynamic rounding mode which does not match the actual rounding > > mode at runtime results in undefined behavior. > > Be aware that currently neither of the metadata arguments does anything. They > get dropped when llvm reaches the SelectionDAG. And none of the optimization > passes that run before that know anything about constrained intrinsics at > all. This means they treat code that has them conservatively. Preserving and > using that metadata in the optimization passes and getting it down and used > by the MI layer is planned but hasn't happened yet. So the full set of > arguments may not make sense yet, but an on/off switch for strict mode > hopefully does. @andrew.w.kaylor Can you please check over Kevin's comments about metadata? Repository: rL LLVM CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D62731/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D62731 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
