[PATCH] D53157: Teach the IRBuilder about constrained fadd and friends

uweigand added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D53157#1303193, @andrew.w.kaylor wrote: > I agree that it's preferable to re-use these existing options if possible. I > have some concerns that -ftrapping-math has a partial implementation in place > that doesn't seem to be well aligned

[PATCH] D53157: Teach the IRBuilder about constrained fadd and friends

uweigand added a comment. OK, let me try to expand on my point 3 above, which appears to have confused everybody :-) First, let's distinguish two separate requirements: those on floating-point operations that explicitly run in regions with non-default control modes, and those on

[PATCH] D54355: Use is.constant intrinsic for __builtin_constant_p

uweigand added a comment. It seems this patch caused the SystemZ build bots to fail, they're now all running into assertion failures: ICE cannot be evaluated! UNREACHABLE executed at /home/uweigand/sandbox/buildbot/clang-s390x-linux/llvm/tools/clang/lib/AST/ExprConstant.cpp:11442! See e.g.

[PATCH] D53157: Teach the IRBuilder about constrained fadd and friends

uweigand added a comment. A couple of comments on the previous discussion: 1. Instead of defining a new command line option, I'd prefer to use the existing options -frounding-math and -ftrapping-math to set the default behavior of math operations w.r.t. rounding modes and exception status.

[PATCH] D52840: Include Python binding tests in CMake rules

uweigand added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D52840#1265615, @mgorny wrote: > The first one seems to indicate that your `libclang.so` is broken in release > mode (optimization error?). The second one is correct (some of the tests test > for errors, and apparently don't silence the

[PATCH] D52840: Include Python binding tests in CMake rules

uweigand added a comment. This causes check-all to abort for me on SystemZ in Release mode (and never actually run the lit tests): [40/365] cd /home/uweigand/llvm/llvm-head/tools/clang/bindings/python && /usr/bin/cmake -E...BRARY_PATH=/home/uweigand/llvm/build/llvm-head/lib

[PATCH] D33648: [OpenCL] An error shall occur if any scalar operand has greater rank than the type of the vector element

uweigand accepted this revision. uweigand added a comment. This revision is now accepted and ready to land. Yes, this works for me now. Thanks! https://reviews.llvm.org/D33648 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org

[PATCH] D33353: [OpenCL] An error shall occur if any scalar operand has greater rank than the type of the vector element

uweigand added a comment. The problem is that the new test case you added does not contain a -triple argument in the compile command. This means that the compile targets the native architecture on the build system, whatever this is. Since OpenCL support on different architectures may be

[PATCH] D33353: [OpenCL] An error shall occur if any scalar operand has greater rank than the type of the vector element

uweigand added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D33353#765783, @bader wrote: > Could you revert Egor's commit, please? I see Renato Golin has already reverted the commit, thanks ... https://reviews.llvm.org/D33353 ___ cfe-commits mailing

[PATCH] D33353: [OpenCL] An error shall occur if any scalar operand has greater rank than the type of the vector element

uweigand added a comment. Looks like this causes the build bot to fail on SystemZ: http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/clang-s390x-linux/builds/8741 error: 'error' diagnostics expected but not seen: File

[PATCH] D30415: Fix -mno-altivec cannot overwrite -maltivec option

uweigand added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D30415#705889, @echristo wrote: > In https://reviews.llvm.org/D30415#705196, @uweigand wrote: > > > Well, mainline GCC doesn't have -faltivec at all and never had, I think > > this was only an Apple GCC extension ... Not sure what exactly

[PATCH] D30415: Fix -mno-altivec cannot overwrite -maltivec option

uweigand added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D30415#704761, @echristo wrote: > In https://reviews.llvm.org/D30415#703652, @uweigand wrote: > > > I'm a bit confused by this discussion. -faltivec and -maltivec are simply > > aliases, they do exactly the same thing; the clang-internal

[PATCH] D30415: Fix -mno-altivec cannot overwrite -maltivec option

uweigand added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D30415#703442, @hfinkel wrote: > In https://reviews.llvm.org/D30415#703398, @echristo wrote: > > > Different suggestion: > > > > Remove the faltivec option. Even gcc doesn't support it anymore afaict. > > > What are you suggesting? Always

<    1   2