craig.topper added a comment.
In D99320#2661285 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D99320#2661285>, @asb wrote:
> Can I just check the reasoning on the naming? I see that the bitmanip 0.93
> spec proposes `_{rv,rv32,rv64}_{opname}` intrinsics. Does the
> `__builtin__{riscv,riscv32,riscv64}_opname` format match what GCC are doing /
> planning to do here? Precedent for RVV, for other archs, or something else?
>
> Just trying to determine to what these names are an open item of discussion
> vs matching something else.
>
> EDIT: I see Craig commented on this point in
> https://reviews.llvm.org/D99009#2660456
Yeah the big open for naming is the name of the intrinsic header. Whether it
should be rvintrin.h or riscv_intrinsic.h.
The builtins in this patch are
__builtin_riscv_orc_b_32
__builtin_riscv_orc_b_64
I've update the description summary to reflect this since it change during
development.
The Zbr patch uses the following without a 32/64 suffix.
__builtin_riscv_crc32_b/w/d/q
There's a difference because orc.b needs to be available for 32-bit on RV32 and
RV64 per the spec so we have two builtins. crc32.b intrinsics in the spec are
defined only for xlen so we have a single builtin.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D99320/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D99320
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
