xry111 wrote: I have some doubt about this change.
To me if the user requests `xvpermi.q` via the `loongarch_lasx_xvpermi_q` intrinsic, we should give her/him the `xvpermi.q` instruction. If (s)he is passing an invalid operand then (s)he is invoking the undefined behavior herself/himself and we don't need to guarantee a thing. So to me we should not merge this and we should revert this change for main. Or am I missing something? @xen0n @heiher @SixWeining @MaskRay https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/83540 _______________________________________________ llvm-branch-commits mailing list llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-branch-commits