SixWeining 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
Yes, it can be argued. But I know gcc has similar change. 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
