hjl.tools added a comment. In D108643#2999724 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D108643#2999724>, @aaron.ballman wrote:
> In D108643#2991995 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D108643#2991995>, @hjl.tools > wrote: > >>>> The choice that high bits are unspecified rather than extended is an >>>> interesting one. Can you speak to that? That's good for +, -, *, &, |, >>>> ^, <<, and narrowing conversions, but bad for ==, <, /, >>, and widening >>>> conversions. >>> >>> I've added @hjl.tools to the review for his opinions, as he was the primary >>> driver for the x64 ABI proposal. HJ, can you help me out here? >> >> Please follow up x86-64 psABI proposal with any feedbacks: >> >> https://groups.google.com/g/x86-64-abi/c/XQiSj-zU3w8 > > We don't have feedback yet, @hjl.tools; we're asking for rationale on the > behavior of unused bits in the proposed psABI for x86-64. Can you help us > understand why the bits are unspecified rather than extended and whether > there are potential performance concerns from this decision (before it gets > solidified)? Thanks! It was suggested by people who proposed _BitInt. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D108643/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D108643 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
