zahiraam marked an inline comment as done. zahiraam added a comment. In D113107#3606106 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D113107#3606106>, @rjmccall wrote:
> In D113107#3606094 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D113107#3606094>, @zahiraam > wrote: > >> In D113107#3605797 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D113107#3605797>, @rjmccall >> wrote: >> >>> I think on balance the right thing to do is probably to add an alternative >>> to `-fexcess-precision`, like `-fexcess-precision=none`. We can default to >>> `-fexcess-precision=standard` and treat `-fexcess-precision=fast` as an >>> alias for `standard` for now. >> >> In >> https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-4.8.2/gcc/Optimize-Options.html#index-ffloat-store-900 >> , it looks like when compiling C, the default is >> -fexcess-precision=standard which would align with this implementation and >> our default too. So I think we could use the same name for the option. >> -fexcess-precision=none corresponds to the current behavior. >> -fexcess-precision=standard = -fexcess-precision=fast corresponds to this >> implementation. >> Agreed? > > Since you're not landing this option right now anyway, do you mind broaching > this with the GCC folks, just to be good neighbors? You can just say that > (1) Clang is looking for a way to request operation-by-operation lowering, > (2) it feels like `-fexcess-precision` is the right option to add that to, > (3) we don't want to tread on toes by adding an alternative to "their" option > without talking to them first, and (4) what do they think about "none"? https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106117 CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D113107/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D113107 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
