Izaron abandoned this revision. Izaron added a comment. In D134136#3801495 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D134136#3801495>, @efriedma wrote:
> These patches are hard to review, yes; the reviewer has to go through and > verify for each function that the substitutes you've written actually match > the C library semantics. (It's very easy to make mistakes with that sort of > thing.) > > On that front, I'm pretty sure the NaN handling in your fmin/fmax > implementations are wrong. Thanks! I'm abandoning this patch, will make new smaller but better patches. > each function that the substitutes you've written actually match the C > library semantics I think this can be verified with libc++/libc tests that would substitute either `std::fmax` or (constant) `__builtin_fmax` on same checks and assert that they behave in the same way. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D134136/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D134136 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
