tejohnson added a comment. In D77925#2229484 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D77925#2229484>, @mehdi_amini wrote:
> Overall that would likely work for XLA. Something I'd like to mention though > in response to: > >> The veclib type is also tied to the accepted values for -fveclib, which is a >> list of supported lib, > > `-fveclib` is a Clang thing, it shouldn't limit what LLVM does. Of course > LLVM needs to support Clang, but does not have to inherit the limitation of > map 1:1 to Clang UI. > In particular as a library, it isn't clear why we would make the choice to > write LLVM VecLib support this way. Is there any benefit to keeping a closed list like this in LLVM? If not (and presumably clang is checking for valid values of -fveclib), then I think I agree with @mehdi_amini. Unless there is an efficiency reason for doing it via an enum. It's been awhile since I looked through this code in detail... Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D77925/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D77925 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
