eopXD added a comment. In D142094#4065611 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D142094#4065611>, @asb wrote:
> In D142094#4065175 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D142094#4065175>, @eopXD wrote: > >> @asb I just saw the cancellation of the sync-up call today. Regarding the >> branch out on 01/24 I think it would be good to have these incompatible >> changes into LLVM 16. > > Sorry for missing there were open questions about this. I won't uncancel the > meeting at this point as I think that will just cause more confusion. > > What does GCC currently do about these intrinsics? GCC is targeting to support v1.0 in the next release. The v1.0 intrinsics, excluding the rounding mode (`vxrm`, `frm`) and exception flag (`vxsat`, `fflag`) intrinsics, should be ones that LLVM have after the above changes have landed. > I think the obvious concern would be that by continuing to alter these > intrinsics across releases, we're extending the compatibility issue. Yes I agree with you. This is the main reason I am trying to have these incompatible changes be landed in LLVM 16. > Though without RVV 1.0 being agreed yet, I don't see any options other than > just documenting where we're at and noting that more changes are possible (as > this change does), or alternatively moving the intrinsics to an experimental > flag until they're unexperimental. The simplification [0] and `__riscv_` [1] is discussed across and have converged. I understand it is a procedural problem that we want the specification be established first, but we also have to conform to the release date of LLVM 16. [0] https://github.com/riscv-non-isa/rvv-intrinsic-doc/pull/186 [1] https://github.com/riscv-non-isa/riscv-c-api-doc/pull/31 Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D142094/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D142094 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
