[PATCH] D93860: [SLP] delete unused pairwise reduction option

[Pengfei Wang via Phabricator via llvm-commits]

pengfei added a comment.

> Let me know if I am not answering/understanding the questions.

That's more clear to me. Thank you.

> The transformed code with reduction assumes things like `ninf` and `nnan`, but those do not exist in the original code.

Yep, that's definitely wrong. But I think FMF propagation is not an easy thing. We cannot always copy the original FMF, right? E.g. `reassoc` reduction may result in `inf` which "sequential" doesn't. Should `ninf` be propagated or not after reduction?


CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D93860/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D93860