jrtc27 added a comment. In D143953#4124636 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D143953#4124636>, @reames wrote:
> @jrtc27 Not sure if this changes your take, but I realized the variant being > introduced is maybe much less interesting than I'd first thought. We > generally make no effort to make sure an extension was defined in the spec > version corresponding to our base revision. Given that, we have a bunch of > cases where we allow I2.0 + some random extension. Given that, this one > stops looking all that interesting. It doesn't actually set much precedent - > because we already did that, a long time ago. > > If you agree with that framing, I'll rework the description. Hm, do we allow M + Zmmul? If so then I guess I can get behind that view. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D143953/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D143953 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
