rjmccall added a comment. In D113107#3606094 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D113107#3606094>, @zahiraam wrote:
> In D113107#3605797 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D113107#3605797>, @rjmccall > wrote: > >> I think on balance the right thing to do is probably to add an alternative >> to `-fexcess-precision`, like `-fexcess-precision=none`. We can default to >> `-fexcess-precision=standard` and treat `-fexcess-precision=fast` as an >> alias for `standard` for now. > > In > https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-4.8.2/gcc/Optimize-Options.html#index-ffloat-store-900 > , it looks like when compiling C, the default is > -fexcess-precision=standard which would align with this implementation and > our default too. So I think we could use the same name for the option. > -fexcess-precision=none corresponds to the current behavior. > -fexcess-precision=standard = -fexcess-precision=fast corresponds to this > implementation. > Agreed? Since you're not landing this option right now anyway, do you mind broaching this with the GCC folks, just to be good neighbors? You can just say that (1) Clang is looking for a way to request operation-by-operation lowering, (2) it feels like `-fexcess-precision` is the right option to add that to, (3) we don't want to tread on toes by adding an alternative to "their" option without talking to them first, and (4) what do they think about "none"? CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D113107/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D113107 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
