amyk added inline comments.
================ Comment at: clang/lib/Sema/SemaChecking.cpp:3356 + case PPC::BI__builtin_ppc_maddld: + return SemaFeatureCheck(*this, TheCall, "power9-vector", + diag::err_ppc_builtin_only_on_pwr9); ---------------- This is just a question. Is `power9-vector` the correct feature check in these cases? Does it matter if these are not vector instructions? ================ Comment at: clang/test/CodeGen/builtins-ppc-xlcompat-multiply-64bit-only.c:15 + // CHECK-LABEL: @test_builtin_ppc_mulhd( + // CHECK-NEXT: entry: + // CHECK: %2 = call i64 @llvm.ppc.mulhd(i64 %0, i64 %1) ---------------- Does `entry` need to be removed from these tests (in case of failing in non-assert builds)? Perhaps it may not fail but might be good to double check. ================ Comment at: llvm/include/llvm/IR/IntrinsicsPowerPC.td:1527 } - ---------------- nit: unrelated change? Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D102875/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D102875 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
