Displaying 3 results from an estimated 3 matches for "frintm".
Did you mean:
frint
2017 Nov 04
2
RFC: We need to explicitly state that some functions are reserved by LLVM
...frontend to know about every function the optimizer knows about.
>> Over-marking seems okay, however.
>
> I think this is the pragmatic way forwards. For a concise example of
> how broken/surprising the current behaviour is:
> <snip>
> ffloor is legal for AArch64, meaning frintm is produced rather than a
> call to floor. Deleting the 'readnone' attribute from the floor
> function will avoid lowering to ffloor. Compile with -mtriple=arm and
> the generated assembly has completely different semantics (calling
> floor and so aborting).
>
> I'm no...
2017 Oct 27
5
RFC: We need to explicitly state that some functions are reserved by LLVM
On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 1:50 AM, David Chisnall via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> This seems slightly inverted. As I understand it, the root of the problem
> is that some standards, such as C, C++, and POSIX, define some functions as
> special and we rely on their specialness when optimising. Unfortunately,
> the specialness is a property of the source
2017 Nov 11
5
RFC: We need to explicitly state that some functions are reserved by LLVM
...> On Nov 4, 2017, at 3:12 PM, Alex Bradbury via llvm-dev <
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
> I think this is the pragmatic way forwards. For a concise example of
> how broken/surprising the current behaviour is:
> <snip>
> ffloor is legal for AArch64, meaning frintm is produced rather than a
> call to floor. Deleting the 'readnone' attribute from the floor
> function will avoid lowering to ffloor. Compile with -mtriple=arm and
> the generated assembly has completely different semantics (calling
> floor and so aborting).
>
> I'm no...