[PATCH] D111085: [FPEnv][InstSimplify] Fold constrained X + -0.0 ==> X

[Sanjay Patel via Phabricator via llvm-commits]

spatel added inline comments.


================
Comment at: llvm/include/llvm/IR/FPEnv.h:64
+/// at run time.
+inline bool RoundingModeMayBe(RoundingMode RM, RoundingMode QRM) {
+  return RM == QRM || RM == RoundingMode::Dynamic;
----------------
kpn wrote:
> spatel wrote:
> > Nit: If we don't use the current/correct formatting for a function name (`roundingModeMayBe`), we're never going to get out of the formatting mess we're in. 
> > 
> > Bonus points for fixing all of the functions here (as an NFC preliminary patch). :)
> Does this apply to type names that appear in the name of functions? For example, RoundingModeToStr() takes a RoundingMode argument. That was part of why I went with RoundingModeMayBe(). (The rest of the reason was to be consistent with the rest of this file.)
I didn't notice that quirk of naming...
In this case, I think we can fix it with "canRoundingModeBe" ?
That may lower our score on an English test, but still in compliance with:
https://llvm.org/docs/CodingStandards.html#name-types-functions-variables-and-enumerators-properly




Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D111085/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D111085