[LLVMdev] [PATCH][RFC]: Add fmin/fmax intrinsics
arsenm2 at gmail.com
Wed Oct 8 14:06:17 PDT 2014
On Sep 18, 2014, at 2:54 PM, Matt Arsenault <arsenm2 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 17, 2014, at 5:44 PM, Matt Arsenault <arsenm2 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 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.
>>>> 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
>> I can rename these, but the convention followed by all the other LLVM intrinsics follow the C library names
> Updated patches that rename the intrinsics to minnum / maxnum, though the ISD names are still FMIN / FMAX
More information about the llvm-dev