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?

cfe-commits mailing list

Reply via email to