SixWeining wrote: > For the record, based on the principle of "explicit is better than implicit" > that generally holds, I'd favor an approach where such > compile-time-verifiable out-of-range operands are given compile-time errors, > or we should just pass through the value unmodified. Otherwise the intrinsic > would have to carry the workaround effectively forever, and we could find > ourselves trapped if later micro-architectures actually start to make use of > the currently cleared bits.
Makes sense. After discussion with gcc-loongarch team, we both decide to revert this change. Thanks. 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
