[PATCH] D30582: [Driver] Restructure handling of -ffast-math and similar options

[Renato Golin via Phabricator via cfe-commits]

rengolin accepted this revision.
rengolin added a comment.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.

Ok, with the break fix, this looks goof to me. Thanks!



================
Comment at: lib/Driver/ToolChains/Clang.cpp:2452
+  if (!HonorInfs && !HonorNans && !MathErrno && AssociativeMath &&
+      ReciprocalMath && !SignedZeros && !TrappingMath && FpContract == "fast")
+    CmdArgs.push_back("-ffast-math");
----------------
john.brawn wrote:
> rengolin wrote:
> > rengolin wrote:
> > > This is technically correct, but users will be confused if they choose `-ffast-math -ffp-contract=on` and not see `-ffast-math` coming out on the other side.
> > > 
> > > Also, `fp-contract=on` doesn't preclude `-ffast-math` for the languages that support it, so I wouldn't add `FpContract` to this list at all.
> > I've been thinking a bit more about this, and I started wondering, why do we even need to pass `-ffast-math` down?
> > 
> > If all the others are already being passed, shouldn't this flag be redundant?
> > 
> > Finally, we could possibly add instead `&& FpContract != "off"`. Would that be better?
> As the comment above says, -ffast-math enables the __FAST_MATH__ macro.
> 
> As to FpContract, going back and checking gcc setting -ffp-contract has no effect on whether __FAST_MATH__ is defined so I think just not checking FpContract here is correct.
Right, makes sense.


================
Comment at: lib/Driver/ToolChains/Clang.cpp:2347
+    // Validate and pass through -fp-contract option.
+    case options::OPT_ffp_contract: {
+      StringRef Val = A->getValue();
----------------
john.brawn wrote:
> rengolin wrote:
> > Also, when `-ffast-math` is selected, and `-ffp-contract=on`, we should actually change it to `fast`, no?
> Do you mean "clang -ffp-contract=on -ffast-math should set fp-contract to fast" or "clang -ffast-math -ffp-contract=on should set fp-contract to fast"? The first is already done by the -ffast-math handling below, and I think the second is a bad idea because it violates the principle that later command-line options have priority over earlier ones.
The former is done by overall design, the latter is different to most other options because of what "on" means and how it's *not* implemented, meaning it'll be effectively "off". Otherwise, I'd completely agree with you.

But that's not a strong point, for me. I'm happy to not have that now and involve this into a more general "what does on mean" later on.


Repository:
  rL LLVM

https://reviews.llvm.org/D30582