zoecarver added a comment. In D87974#2438682 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D87974#2438682>, @BillyONeal wrote:
>> Are they actually the same, with the same handling of corner cases like >> unions and tail padding? >> There's more to this than just the name, and if they aren't the same, it >> seems better to have two names. > > They are both implementing the same C++ feature, with the same desired > semantics of zeroing out any bits in the object representation that aren't in > the value representation. If they differ, one or the other would have a bug. I agree, they either need to be identical (including corner cases) or there needs to be two of them (i.e., GCC ships both `__builtin_zero_non_value_bits` and `__builtin_clear_padding` and the first is the same as MSVC, Clang, and NVCC). >> Is there a specification for __builtin_zero_non_value_bits available >> somewhere? > > I don't know if there is a formal spec for it beyond the actual C++ standard. I think P0528 is the relevant paper but other than that, no, there's not a spec. I think that's going to be the most time sensitive part of implementing this: coming up with the spec and making sure all the tests pass on all the implementations. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D87974/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D87974 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
