kromanova added a comment. In http://reviews.llvm.org/D15999#335653, @echristo wrote:
> Honestly if they've been reviewed like that internally I'm ok with you just > committing them - especially if they look like this. > > The only concerns I'd have are in the case of "This intrinsic corresponds to > the <blank> instruction" (side note, use the "the"? I commented on a case > inline). This isn't always the > case with all of our intrinsics when the compiler lowers them to a shuffle > intrinsic or some such, or it's optimized, etc. Personally I'd leave that > line out, though I understand it exists > in a lot of similar documentation. BTW, in some cases, our documentation won't be as specific and will say "This intrinsic (e.g. _mm_store_ps1 ) corresponds to the Shuffling + MOVSS instruction" or "No AVX instruction corresponds to this intrinsic (e.g. _mm256_set_pd)" or "Composite SSE2 instruction corresponds to this intrinsic (e.g. _mm_set_sd). Microsoft and Intel's documentation are very similar with this respect. See the description of _mm_set_sd intrinsic that I just mentioned. https://software.intel.com/en-us/node/524261 https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dksztbt9%28v=vs.90%29.aspx http://reviews.llvm.org/D15999 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
