frasercrmck wrote: > Also does this have the same > maybe-defined-maybe-not-depending-on-target-preference as __builtin_clz? Can > you document that explicitly if it is or not? > > I've always hated that behavior and think it's absurd. My main hesitation is > if we're doing something less confusing, could switch to match the llvm > intrinsic name
There *is* currently target-specific zero-is-undef behaviour in this patch. On second thought I agree - I don't think we should be replicating that. @efriedma-quic, since you've already approved, would you object to having these builtins unconditionally have zero-is-undef behaviour? What do you think about renaming these builtins as something like `__builtin_elementwise_cttz` (`ctlz`) to avoid the conflation of behaviour with the GCC builtins? https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/131995 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
