Displaying 3 results from an estimated 3 matches for "nomemtrap".
2013 Nov 01
0
[LLVMdev] Add a 'notrap' function attribute?
...bute 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 "discouraged"
> in the specs). If they...
2013 Oct 31
6
[LLVMdev] Add a 'notrap' function attribute?
...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
2013 Oct 31
0
[LLVMdev] Add a 'notrap' function attribute?
...y 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
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> LLVMdev at c...