search for: nofptrap

...dev/2013-July/064426.html I think such an attribute should be added. In the thread which lead up to that thread, I proposed using more fine-grained attributes and Michael rightly pointed out the problem with that: you'd need one for every possible form of undefined behaviour. You listed "nofptrap", "nodivtrap" and "nomemtrap", but you didn't say "nounreachabletrap". Whoops! Nick On 31 October 2013 07:38, Pekka Jääskeläinen <pekka.jaaskelainen at tut.fi>wrote: > Hello, > > OpenCL C specifies that instructions should not trap (it is &q...

...then the attribute should not be added the first place. The attribute could be called 'notrap' which would include the semantics of any trap caused by any instruction. Or that could be split, just in case the hardware is known not to support one of the features. Three could suffice: 'nofptrap' (no IEEE FP exceptions), 'nodivtrap' (no divide by zero exceptions, undef value output instead), 'nomemtrap' (no mem exceptions). What do you think of the general idea? Or is there something similar already that can accomplish this? Thanks in advance, -- Pekka

...> be added the first place. > > The attribute could be called 'notrap' which would include the > semantics of any trap caused by any instruction. Or that could be > split, just in case the hardware is known not to support one of the > features. Three could suffice: 'nofptrap' (no IEEE FP exceptions), > 'nodivtrap' (no divide by zero exceptions, undef value output instead), > 'nomemtrap' (no mem exceptions). > > What do you think of the general idea? Or is there something similar > already that can accomplish this? > > Thanks i...