llvm-project

Commit Graph

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
Eli Friedman	3f1ce093ea	Make uitofp and sitofp defined on overflow. IEEE 754 defines the expected result on overflow. As far as I know, hardware implementations (of f16), and compiler-rt (__floatuntisf) correctly return +-Inf on overflow. And I can't think of any useful transform that would take advantage of overflow being undefined here. Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D47807 llvm-svn: 334777	2018-06-14 22:58:48 +00:00
Sanjay Patel	0e8b90da0c	[ConstProp] move tests for fp <--> int; NFC These were added for D5603 / rL219542, and there's a proposal to change one side in D47807. These are tests of constant propagation, so they shouldn't have ever been tested/housed under InstCombine. llvm-svn: 334107	2018-06-06 16:53:56 +00:00

Author

SHA1

Message

Date

Eli Friedman

3f1ce093ea

Make uitofp and sitofp defined on overflow.

IEEE 754 defines the expected result on overflow. As far as I know,
hardware implementations (of f16), and compiler-rt (__floatuntisf)
correctly return +-Inf on overflow. And I can't think of any useful
transform that would take advantage of overflow being undefined here.

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D47807

llvm-svn: 334777

2018-06-14 22:58:48 +00:00

Sanjay Patel

0e8b90da0c

[ConstProp] move tests for fp <--> int; NFC

These were added for D5603 / rL219542, and there's a proposal to 
change one side in D47807.

These are tests of constant propagation, so they shouldn't have
ever been tested/housed under InstCombine.

llvm-svn: 334107

2018-06-06 16:53:56 +00:00

2 Commits