On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 08:47:55AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote: > OK, but IMHO it is not a good idea to assert UNORDERED_EXPR cannot > appear with !HONOR_NANS, is it?
If we allow that, we should allow UNLT/UNGT/UNLE/UNGE/UNEQ/LTGT as well, which doesn't make much sense, especially because LTGT then is the same as NE, but NE with HONOR_NANS means something different. Without HONOR_NANS all FP comparisons (and FP math in most other aspects) behaves like integers do. Having to support ORDERED and UNORDERED for !HONOR_NANS means we need a third codepath in many places. Without this, the !HONOR_NANS code is very close to the integer code, so it's not all that bad. Assert... Should we have an assert in some strategic places that makes sure we never try to create NaN stuff when NaNs are disabled? Segher
