chill added inline comments.
================ Comment at: llvm/test/CodeGen/AArch64/aarch64-bf16-ldst-intrinsics.ll:264 +; Function Attrs: argmemonly nounwind readonly +declare { <8 x bfloat>, <8 x bfloat> } @llvm.aarch64.neon.ld2lane.v8bf16.p0i8(<8 x bfloat>, <8 x bfloat>, i64, i8*) #3 + ---------------- LukeGeeson wrote: > SjoerdMeijer wrote: > > LukeGeeson wrote: > > > arsenm wrote: > > > > Why is the IR type name bfloat and not bfloat16? > > > The naming for the IR type was agreed upon here after quite a big > > > discussion. > > > https://reviews.llvm.org/D78190 > > I regret very much that I didn't notice this earlier... I.e., I noticed > > this in D76077 and wrote that I am relatively unhappy about this (I think I > > mentioned this on another ticket too). > > Because like @arsenm , I would expect the IR type name to be bfloat16. > > > > Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't see a big discussion about this in > > D78190. I only see 1 or 2 comments about `BFloat` vs `Bfloat`. > I cannot see a discussion about the IR type name per-se but I can see you > were both involved in the discussion more generally. > > I am concerned that this patch is the wrong place to discuss such issues, and > that we should bring this up in a more appropriate place as you mention so > that this patch isn't held back. I don't see a compelling reason for the name to be `bfloat16` or `bfloat3`, etc. Like other floating-point types (`float`, `double`, and `half`), the name denotes a specific externally defined format, unlike `iN`. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D80716/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D80716 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits