llvm dev - Sep 2014 - [LLVMdev] [PATCH][RFC]: Add fmin/fmax intrinsics

Given IEEE-754's sway, and its saying what it does on this point, but given
also the popularity of NaN-propagating min and max, how about a compromise?
We add intrinsics following the IEEE-754 semantics, but we also follow
IEEE-754 (and ARMv8) in renaming them to minnum and maxnum, to clarify
which interpretation these intrinsics are using.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20140915/ef59050f/attachment.html>

I’d be fine with that proposal.  I could even be convinced if we wanted to add a
pair of NaN-propagating intrinsics as well, for targets and languages that want
those semantics, even if I disagree with them.  I do think that, if we are using
the minnum/maxnum names, we should explicitly note that they are equivalent to
C’s fmin/fmax, but not std::min/std::max or Java(script)’s min/max.

—Owen

> On Sep 15, 2014, at 12:26 PM, Dan Gohman <dan433584 at gmail.com>
wrote:
> 
> Given IEEE-754's sway, and its saying what it does on this point, but
given also the popularity of NaN-propagating min and max, how about a
compromise? We add intrinsics following the IEEE-754 semantics, but we also
follow IEEE-754 (and ARMv8) in renaming them to minnum and maxnum, to clarify
which interpretation these intrinsics are using.

On Sep 15, 2014, at 4:17 PM, Owen Anderson <resistor at mac.com> wrote:
> I’d be fine with that proposal.  I could even be convinced if we wanted to
add a pair of NaN-propagating intrinsics as well, for targets and languages that
want those semantics, even if I disagree with them.  I do think that, if we are
using the minnum/maxnum names, we should explicitly note that they are
equivalent to C’s fmin/fmax, but not std::min/std::max or Java(script)’s
min/max.
> 
> —Owen
> 
> 
>> On Sep 15, 2014, at 12:26 PM, Dan Gohman <dan433584 at gmail.com>
wrote:
>> 
>> Given IEEE-754's sway, and its saying what it does on this point,
but given also the popularity of NaN-propagating min and max, how about a
compromise? We add intrinsics following the IEEE-754 semantics, but we also
follow IEEE-754 (and ARMv8) in renaming them to minnum and maxnum, to clarify
which interpretation these intrinsics are using.
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
I can rename these, but the convention followed by all the other LLVM intrinsics
follow the C library names