[llvm] [LLVM][CodeGen][SVE] Use unpredicated instructions when there's no strictfp requirement. (PR #88166)

[Eli Friedman via llvm-commits]

================
@@ -213,14 +213,31 @@ def AArch64fadd_p_contract : PatFrag<(ops node:$op1, node:$op2, node:$op3),
                                      (AArch64fadd_p node:$op1, node:$op2, node:$op3), [{
   return N->getFlags().hasAllowContract();
 }]>;
+def AArch64fadd_p_nostrictfp : PatFrag<(ops node:$op1, node:$op2, node:$op3),
+                                       (AArch64fadd_p node:$op1, node:$op2, node:$op3), [{
+    // We're allowed to introduce new trapping behaviour.
+    return !MF->getFunction().getAttributes().hasFnAttr(llvm::Attribute::StrictFP);
+}]>;
 def AArch64fadd_p_nsz : PatFrag<(ops node:$op1, node:$op2, node:$op3),
                                 (AArch64fadd_p node:$op1, node:$op2, node:$op3), [{
   return N->getFlags().hasNoSignedZeros();
 }]>;
+
+def AArch64fmul_p_nostrictfp : PatFrag<(ops node:$op1, node:$op2, node:$op3),
+                                       (AArch64fmul_p node:$op1, node:$op2, node:$op3), [{
+    // We're allowed to introduce new trapping behaviour.
+    return !MF->getFunction().getAttributes().hasFnAttr(llvm::Attribute::StrictFP);
----------------
efriedma-quic wrote:

I don't really want a pile of hacks to try to cover up the fact that the combination of strictfp and SVE intrinsics is broken.  If you don't care about that combination, please just drop this code.  If you do care, please fix it properly.

https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/88166