rsandifo-arm added a comment. In D76086#1920558 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D76086#1920558>, @efriedma wrote:
> People are going to want to iterate over arrays in memory to write simple > intrinsic loops. If we don't allow `p + i` to work, people will be forced to > write `(__SVInt8_t*)((char*)p + i * svcntb())`. Which is the same thing, > just a lot uglier. And it wouldn't really be that crazy to support > `sizeof(__SVInt8_t)`. I mean, it's effectively just a different way of > spelling `svcntb()`. I guess we can always relax it later, though. `__SVInt8_t` is only really supposed to be used for short-term working data rather than storage. Sizelessness is one thing that makes it awkward to use as the target of a pointer iterator. But another is that the underlying ABI type has an alignment of 16 bytes regardless of how big the vector actually is. Also, for length-agnostic code, it would be unusual to have two `__SVInt8_t`s side-by-side in memory, since the code doesn't know ahead of time how big each one is. So for length-agnostic code the expectation is that loops would iterate on `int8_t *` instead of `__SVInt8_t *`. It's then possible to operate on pointers that aren't 16-byte aligned. The pointer can also be incremented by `svcntb()` without casting. The same goes for other combinations, e.g. `int32_t *` and `svcntw()`. For length-specific code we're working on another solution that allows SVE vector types to be treated like normal fixed-length types. I hope we'll be able to share that soon. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D76086/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D76086 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
