yaxunl added a comment. In D90174#2389269 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D90174#2389269>, @tra wrote:
> In D90174#2387518 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D90174#2387518>, @scanon wrote: > >> Strictly speaking, fp-contract=fast probably should have been a separate >> flag entirely (since there's no _expression_ being contracted in fast). >> Unfortunately, that ship has sailed, and it does constrain our ability to >> choose an accurate name somewhat. >> >> What if we just spell it out? fast-respect-pragma? fast-when-unspecified? I >> don't think that we really need to try to be as brief as possible with this >> one. > > This sounds reasonable. We already have `-fhonor-nans` and > `-fhonor-infinities`. Should we make it `fast-honor-pragma` for consistency? +1 with fast-honor-pragma CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D90174/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D90174 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
