bader added a comment. > From all the above arguments, I feel like the right approach would be to > implement it as Clang builtin which closely matches the operator semantic in > my opinion. We could of course reuse the implementation of __bultin_astype > to avoid unnecessary extra work and code duplication. > > Using the macro seems to me more like a workaround solution and overloaded > functions don't seem to be entirely the right thing either. What do you > think about it?
I don't think we need another Clang built-in. __builtin_astype was added specifically for OpenCL needs (see rev. 132612). Do you know better way to map astype operators (there are a lot of them as_<type>#) to single Clang built-in? https://reviews.llvm.org/D28136 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list email@example.com http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits