[PATCH] D12633: Implement ACLE 2.0 macros of chapters 6.6 and 6.7 for [ARM] and [Aarch64] targets

[Alexandros Lamprineas via cfe-commits]

labrinea added inline comments.

================
Comment at: lib/Frontend/CompilerInvocation.cpp:1711
@@ -1710,1 +1710,3 @@
       Args.hasArg(OPT_cl_fast_relaxed_math);
+  Opts.UnsafeFPMath = Args.hasArg(OPT_menable_unsafe_fp_math) ||
+                      Args.hasArg(OPT_cl_unsafe_math_optimizations) ||
----------------
richard.barton.arm wrote:
> What happens if I do -menable-unsafe-fp-math then -mno-enable-unsafe-fp-math? I don't think you have enough regression tests.
Well there is no such flag (-mno-enable-unsafe-fp-math) but probably what you want to say is that the order of the front-end flags matters. In **llvm/tools/clang/test/Driver/fast-math.c** there are tests checking whether "-menable-unsafe-fp-math" is correctly set depending on the order of the front-end flags. I could modify my tests so that they pass cc1 flags. Then we would be checking if _ARM_FP_FAST gets defined in the presence of "-menable-unsafe-fp-math". Would that be preferable?


http://reviews.llvm.org/D12633