Thanks for the reviews and approval! I don't have access to commit this change. @spatel can you commit this revision to llvm trunk?

Rebase to llvm trunk. No functional updates.

In D137220#3904940, @spatel wrote:

In D137220#3903744, @karthiksenthil wrote:

I've added asserts in the latest diff to check that FMF.noNaNs() is set.

Thanks - should it also assert for noSignedZeros?

In D137220#3903584, @spatel wrote:

In D137220#3902612, @spatel wrote:

Should these be guarded with an FMF check?

The enum definition says:

FMin,       ///< FP min implemented in terms of select(cmp()).
FMax,       ///< FP max implemented in terms of select(cmp()).

So if we have a NaN input:
fmin(NaN, Inf) --> select (fcmp olt NaN, Inf), NaN, Inf --> Inf (so the NaN input did not survive)

Do you mean that identity value computation for FMin/FMax should be guarded with a FMF.noNaNs() check? What would be the identity value when the flag is absent?

Yes, I'm not sure what it means if we don't have FMF.noNaNs(). Is it possible to create this recurrence without that FMF? If not, can we assert that FMF.noNaNs() is set?

Thanks for the reviews! I've addressed the comments below -

Diff has been rebased to latest version of LV.

@ayermolo I plan to rebase this diff to latest version of LV and update this review in the next few days.

Hi all,