aaron.ballman added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/include/clang/Basic/Builtins.def:649
BUILTIN(__builtin_elementwise_min, "v.", "nct")
+BUILTIN(__builtin_elementwise_ceil, "v.", "nct")
BUILTIN(__builtin_reduce_max, "v.", "nct")
----------------
If we're doing ceil, should we be doing floor at the same time given how much
overlap there should be in the implementations?
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Sema/SemaChecking.cpp:16727-16728
QualType TyA = A.get()->getType();
- if (checkMathBuiltinElementType(*this, ArgLoc, TyA))
+ if (checkMathBuiltinElementType(*this, ArgLoc, TyA) ||
+ ExtraCheck(TyA, ArgLoc))
return true;
----------------
In some ways, it's a not really ideal that we split the type checking like
this. `SemaBuiltinElementwiseMathOneArg()` checks some type validity and the
caller checks some more type validity, so there's no one location to know what
types are actually expected for any given builtin calling this.
Would it be reasonable to instead hoist all the type checking code out of
`SemaBuiltinElementwiseMathOneArg()` and not pass in a functor to it, but
instead check the `CallExpr` type after the call returns? We could also fix up
the function name to be a bit less nonsensical at the same time, like renaming
it to `PrepareBuiltinElementwiseMathOneArgCall()` or something along those
lines?
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D114688/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D114688
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
