[LLVMdev] [PATCH][RFC]: Add fmin/fmax intrinsics

[Matt Arsenault]

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.
>>> 
>>> —Owen
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> 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
>>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
>> 
>> 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
> 
> 
> <0001-Add-minnum-maxnum-intrinsics.patch><0002-Move-minnum-maxnum-constant-folding-logic-into-APFlo.patch>


ping