kristof.beyls added a comment.
In D74918#1923151 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D74918#1923151>, @zoecarver wrote:
> There are a lot of different ways we could implement the feature. We may want
> to only enable it when `-march=native`, or maybe only in the unstable ABI,
> and maybe we want to support aligned pairs on some architectures. I think
> that's an important discussion to have but I'm not sure _this_ patch is the
> best place to have that discussion.
>
> Even if we don't use this patch in the implementation I think it would still
> be a good utility to have. Here's what I suggest: I commit this, create
> another patch to add a builtin that exposes this API, and then open a libc++
> patch with a _possible_ implementation. In that patch, we can discuss how we
> should actually implement the feature and after we have a consensus I can do
> the work to implement it. Any objections to that plan?
Discussing the implementation strategy for
std::hardware_{constructive,destructive}_interference_size on a libc++ thread
rather than here makes sense.
I'm afraid I don't have a good view on all the ways the API and associated
intrinsic proposed here will or could be used in practice.
My only thought on it is that we cannot guarantee that different versions of
LLVM will keep on reporting the same number, even for identical targets.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D74918/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D74918
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
