<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=iso-8859-1"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><br><div><div>On Apr 26, 2013, at 4:39 PM, Dan Gohman <<a href="mailto:dan433584@gmail.com">dan433584@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr">On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 4:20 PM, Owen Anderson <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:resistor@mac.com" target="_blank">resistor@mac.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><br><div><div class="im"><br></div></div><div>I have the opposite problem. I have customers who call libm functions with constants (or their LLVM intrinsic equivalents) are get very angry if they don't get constant folded, and they're not picky at all about the precision.</div>
</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div style="">If, peradventure, you're using fast-math mode, then you're in a different boat.</div></div></div></div></blockquote><br></div><div>My point is that we have clients who don't want to lose existing functionality. Obviously it's fine to <i>also</i> want to support other models as well. Also, we don't currently support fast math flags on call instructions, so the boat's not saved by that. </div><div><br></div><div>--Owen</div><br></body></html>