shiltian wrote: > This "convention" that intrinsics should correspond to instructions is > severely outdated. We have moved beyond that, where we use intrinsics to > represent semantics rather than instructions.
> I am strongly opposed to any use of that legacy convention on that. > I strongly agree too. We should do what's best for the compiler and UX, not > follow some arbitrary convention from the past. Not specific to this `.async` case, but regarding the general intrinsic convention, I don't agree. LLVM intrinsics are not intended to provide a nice library-like interface, and the backend is not the right place to do the heavy lifting. There should be only a very limited number of exceptions. Otherwise, instruction selection would become unmanageable. We have not moved in that direction so far, and I don't think we ever should. As for this specific `.async` case, I don't have a particularly strong opinion from the perspective of intrinsic naming conventions. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/200775 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
