jfb added inline comments.
================ Comment at: clang/docs/LanguageExtensions.rst:2446 +order in which they occur (and in which they are observable) can only be +guaranteed using appropriate fences around the function call. Element size must +therefore be a lock-free size for the target architecture. It is a runtime ---------------- rjmccall wrote: > jfb wrote: > > rjmccall wrote: > > > "*The* element size must..." But I would suggest using "access size" > > > consistently rather than "element size". > > I'm being consistent with the naming for IR, which uses "element" as well. > > I'm not enamored with the naming, but wanted to point out the purposeful > > consistency to make sure you preferred "access size". Without precedent I > > would indeed prefer "access size", but have a slight preference for > > consistency here. This is extremely weakly held preference. > > > > (I fixed "the"). > IR naming is generally random fluff plucked from the mind of an inspired > compiler engineer. User documentation is the point where we're supposed to > put our bad choices behind us and do something that makes sense to users. :) "access size" it is :) Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D79279/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D79279 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
