majnemer added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/AST/MicrosoftMangle.cpp:848
case APFloat::S_Float8E4M3FNUZ:
+ case APFloat::S_Float8E4M3B11FNUZ:
llvm_unreachable("Tried to mangle unexpected APFloat semantics");
----------------
aaron.ballman wrote:
> Why are there no changes needed for the Itanium mangler? And when did we
> start adding a bunch of esoteric float formats? Was there an RFC for this
> that I missed? (If I did miss something, then sorry for the noise.)
Hi Aaron,
The Itanium mangler doesn't depend on the APFloat's semantics, it just depends
on:
- The Clang AST type of the float.
- The bit pattern of the APFloat.
The code to handle the bit pattern is written generically, regardless of
APFloat semantics.
Because of this and the lack of a new Clang built-in floating type results in
no necessary changes to the Itanium mangler.
This just comes down to a quirk in how the MSVC and Itanium manglers are
written: new APFloat semantics necessarily result in the MSVC mangler
"noticing" while they don't for the Itanium mangler.
As to your question about an RFC, one was posted for some similar but different
formats that people are interested in
[here](https://discourse.llvm.org/t/rfc-adding-the-amd-graphcore-maybe-others-float8-formats-to-apfloat/67969)
The general consensus on that RFC was that APFloat should support formats that
people use in practice. This format is incorporated as part of real hardware in
the real world as well as an [open source compiler
framework](https://github.com/openxla/stablehlo/blob/main/rfcs/20230309-e4m3b11.md).
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D146441/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D146441
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
