rjmccall added a comment. Hmm. I think there are two reasonable concerns here, both arising from the fact that these names occupy (the builtin namespace parallel to) a namespace that the committee might want to occupy in the future:
- Is a `v2fN` suffix sufficiently likely to avoid interfering with this namespace? If there's an *exact* collision, that might be okay if the builtin actually matches the standard behavior; my concern is that they might conflict. (Different orderings of element count and element type? Unrelated functions ending in `v`?) - Is it a good idea to introduce builtins in this namespace that traffic in our current vector types instead of a potential future standard-blessed vector type? CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D65753/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D65753 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
