[PATCH] D113107: Support of expression granularity for _Float16.

Zahira Ammarguellat via Phabricator via cfe-commits cfe-commits at lists.llvm.org
Tue Jun 28 06:18:22 PDT 2022

zahiraam marked an inline comment as done.
zahiraam added a comment.

In D113107#3606106 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D113107#3606106>, @rjmccall wrote:

> In D113107#3606094 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D113107#3606094>, @zahiraam wrote:
>> In D113107#3605797 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D113107#3605797>, @rjmccall wrote:
>>> I think on balance the right thing to do is probably to add an alternative to `-fexcess-precision`, like `-fexcess-precision=none`.  We can default to `-fexcess-precision=standard` and treat `-fexcess-precision=fast` as an alias for `standard` for now.
>> In https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-4.8.2/gcc/Optimize-Options.html#index-ffloat-store-900 ,  it looks like when compiling C, the default is -fexcess-precision=standard which would align with this implementation and our default too. So I think we could use the same name for the option. 
>> -fexcess-precision=none corresponds to the current behavior.
>> -fexcess-precision=standard = -fexcess-precision=fast corresponds to this implementation.
>> Agreed?
> Since you're not landing this option right now anyway, do you mind broaching this with the GCC folks, just to be good neighbors?  You can just say that (1) Clang is looking for a way to request operation-by-operation lowering, (2) it feels like `-fexcess-precision` is the right option to add that to, (3) we don't want to tread on toes by adding an alternative to "their" option without talking to them first, and (4) what do they think about "none"?




More information about the cfe-commits mailing list