b-sumner added a comment. In D130096#3850473 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D130096#3850473>, @arsenm wrote:
> In D130096#3850472 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D130096#3850472>, @jhuber6 wrote: > >> I don't like the fact that we need to have two different kinds of control >> constants, one per-TU and others per-link job. I'm wondering how difficult >> it would be to make the fast versions of the math calls use different entry >> points. That way we could handle this in the math header wrappers. > > That's really how the C linkage model wants you to handle this. I also would > like to have FP value tracking optimizations take care of the special cases > in the library code There's the "small matter" of implementing the new device library functions. Why is all that more likeable than two kinds of control constants? Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D130096/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D130096 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
