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

Reply via email to