farzonl wrote: > > Your description and the bug you are adressing make sense. One point of > > confusion I see now is our mapping of intrinsics to DXIL Ops. The > > intrinsics still all use `LLVMType`. Is that going to be problem? > > I don't see why it would. LLVMType is perfectly reasonable for describing > LLVM intrinsics. DXIL ops, on the other hand, use a number of specific > `dx.types.*` struct types that aren't easy to describe with LLVMType and it > wouldn't make sense to extend it to do so. Also, there are far fewer types > that come up with DXIL ops, so the full flexibility of LLVMType isn't needed, > hence this simpler approach.
I saw that we were representing typed buffers as `llvm_anyvector_ty` in the intrinsic and I thought that might also be a case where we are using a very broad type. I'm not sure if it matters though. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/104247 _______________________________________________ llvm-branch-commits mailing list llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-branch-commits
