rjmccall added inline comments.
================
Comment at: include/llvm/IR/IntrinsicInst.h:235
+ ebStrict ///< This corresponds to "fpexcept.strict".
};
----------------
kpn wrote:
> rjmccall wrote:
> > Is it okay that `ebUnspecified` and `ebInvalid` overlap here?
> I can think of a couple of alternatives. If they don't overlap then we have
> to go back and sweep the source to make sure that ebUnspecified is always
> handled in all cases that currently handle ebInvalid. And in the future
> nobody is allowed to check in source that doesn't handle both.
>
> Or, we could drop ebUnspecified, but then ebInvalid would have a valid
> meaning to the IRBuilder interface. That looks like a bug even if it works
> properly.
>
> Generally, adding eb/rmUnspecified but having them overlap the invalid cases
> seems to me to be the best option.
What is the purpose of `ebInvalid`? Is this a valid argument to the intrinsic,
or is it there so that `getExceptionBehavior()` has something to return if it
doesn't recognize the argument? For the latter, maybe it would be better to
just assert that the argument was one of the recognized possibilities; we don't
generally expect LLVM to silently propagate ill-formed IR. Or if it's valid to
not provide exception behavior to the intrinsic, maybe that's the same as
`ebUnspecified`, or maybe the accessor should return
`Optional<ExceptionBehavior>`.
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D53157/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D53157
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
