chill added inline comments.
================
Comment at: llvm/test/CodeGen/AArch64/aarch64-bf16-ldst-intrinsics.ll:264
+; Function Attrs: argmemonly nounwind readonly
+declare { <8 x bfloat>, <8 x bfloat> }
@llvm.aarch64.neon.ld2lane.v8bf16.p0i8(<8 x bfloat>, <8 x bfloat>, i64, i8*) #3
+
----------------
SjoerdMeijer wrote:
> chill wrote:
> > SjoerdMeijer wrote:
> > > chill wrote:
> > > > LukeGeeson wrote:
> > > > > SjoerdMeijer wrote:
> > > > > > LukeGeeson wrote:
> > > > > > > arsenm wrote:
> > > > > > > > Why is the IR type name bfloat and not bfloat16?
> > > > > > > The naming for the IR type was agreed upon here after quite a big
> > > > > > > discussion.
> > > > > > > https://reviews.llvm.org/D78190
> > > > > > I regret very much that I didn't notice this earlier... I.e., I
> > > > > > noticed this in D76077 and wrote that I am relatively unhappy about
> > > > > > this (I think I mentioned this on another ticket too).
> > > > > > Because like @arsenm , I would expect the IR type name to be
> > > > > > bfloat16.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't see a big discussion about
> > > > > > this in D78190. I only see 1 or 2 comments about `BFloat` vs
> > > > > > `Bfloat`.
> > > > > I cannot see a discussion about the IR type name per-se but I can see
> > > > > you were both involved in the discussion more generally.
> > > > >
> > > > > I am concerned that this patch is the wrong place to discuss such
> > > > > issues, and that we should bring this up in a more appropriate place
> > > > > as you mention so that this patch isn't held back.
> > > > I don't see a compelling reason for the name to be `bfloat16` or
> > > > `bfloat3`, etc. Like other floating-point types (`float`, `double`, and
> > > > `half`), the name denotes a specific externally defined format, unlike
> > > > `iN`.
> > > > Like other floating-point types (float, double, and half), the name
> > > > denotes a specific externally defined format,
> > >
> > > Is the defined format not called bfloat16?
> > Indeed, people use the name "bfloat16". But then the `half`, `float`, and
> > `double` also differ from the official `binary16`, `binarty32`, and
> > `binary64`.
> > IMHO `bfloat` fits better in the LLVM IR naming convention.
> yeah, so that's exactly why I don't follow your logic. If there's any logic
> in the names here, the mapping from source-language type to IR type seems the
> most plausible one. And I just don't see the benefit of dropping the 16, and
> how that would fit better in some naming scheme or how that makes things
> clearer here.
What source language?
That said, I'm resigning from the bikeshedding here.
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D80716/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D80716
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
