[llvm-dev] Condition code in DAGCombiner::visitFADDForFMACombine?

[Ryan Taylor via llvm-dev]

As far as being present on both, I'm not sure why that would be the case.
If one instruction doesn't have contract or reassoc, then it should be
allowed to be contracted or reassociated despite any other instruction
flags.

That's my interpretation of what it should mean, otherwise, you'd have to
pair each possible combination.



On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 11:04 AM Matt Arsenault <arsenm2 at gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> > On Aug 21, 2018, at 17:57, Ryan Taylor <ryta1203 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Matt,
> > I'm sorry, actually it's fma not fmad.
> >
> > In the post-legalizer DAG combine for the given code it's producing fma
> not fmad. That doens't seem correct.
> >
>
> The contract is on the fadd. I’m not really sure what the rule is supposed
> to be for contract between the nodes. The LangRef doesn’t clarify on this.
> I would assume it would need to be present on both?
>
> -Matt
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20180821/8428a019/attachment.html>