hfinkel added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D31276#709111, @anemet wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D31276#708992, @hfinkel wrote: > > > High-level comment ;) > > > > #pragma clang fast_math contract_fast(on) > > > > > > This seems a bit unfortunate because 'fast' appears twice? How are we > > planning on naming the other fast-math flags? Maybe we should just name it: > > > This is just pure laziness on my part, I was hoping that all these flags can > be implemented with on/off but if you find it confusing that's a good > indicator. > > > > > > > #pragma clang math constract_fast(on) > > > > > > or > > > > #pragma clang math contract(fast) // we could also accept off/on here for > > consistency and compatibility with the standard pragma > > > > > > or maybe fp_math or floating_point_math or floating_point or fp instead of > > math. > > > > I think that I prefer this last form (because it does not repeat 'fast' and > > also makes our extension a pure superset of the standard pragma). > > > > What do you want to name the other flags? I'd prefer if they're > > grammatically consistent. Maybe we should stick closely to the command-line > > options, and have: > > > > fp_contract(on/off/fast) > > unsafe_optimizations(on/off) > > finite_only(on/off) > > > > > > What do you think? > > I really like #pragma clang fp or fp_math because contraction feels different > from the other fast-math flags. That said then we don't want to repeat fp in > fp_contract. > > We should probably have the full list to make sure it works though with all > the FMFs. Here is a straw-man proposal: > > UnsafeAlgebra #pragma clang fp unsafe_optimizations(on/off) > NoNaNs #pragma clang fp no_nans(on/off) > NoInfs #pragma clang fp finite_only(on/off) > NoSignedZeros #pragma clang fp no_signed_zeros(on/off) > AllowReciprocal #pragma clang fp reciprocal_math > AllowContract #pragma clang fp contract(on/off/fast) > > > The negative ones feel a bit strange... What do you think? I agree. The negative ones feel a bit strange. Why should we have no_nans(on) instead of nans(off)? However, I feel that the negative sense is less ambiguous - they better match how I think about it and makes a strict environment one where all of these are 'off', and I like that consistency. In short, I like this proposal. https://reviews.llvm.org/D31276 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
