[PATCH] D133235: [DAGCombiner] More opportunities to fuse fmul and fadd to fma aggressively

[Artem Belevich via Phabricator via llvm-commits]

tra added a comment.

I've been burned by FP numerics in the past, so I'm pretty sure I'm not qualified to tell whether the change will break something in an unexpected way.

> FADD X, (FMA A, B, (FMA C, D, (MUL Y, Z))) -> FMA Y, Z (FMA A, B, (FMA C, D, X))

I'm curious, is there a reason for this particular arrangement? Are there any benefits/disadvantages vs, let's say `FMA A, B (FMA C, D, (FMA Y, Z, X))` ?


Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D133235/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D133235