Daniel Kiss
Daniel Kiss
cc: @ilinpv @jroelofs @andrewcarlotti
Hi @vhscampos, One of the reasons: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/79659 If the macro reports the version then a program code could check the support level. Later if we introduce new features to the...
This https://reviews.llvm.org/D144982 solves the crash with the above reproducers.
"Features that indicate support for hint instructions: these can be dropped, since the instructions can be used unconditionally." but still the functionality may matters. FMV could be used for other...
@labrinea I think we need new version of this PR to reflect above comments and also has merge conflicts.
GCC today already works like this PR. LLVM I'm going to publish a patch. https://godbolt.org/z/37rqdr6ns
> Issue #200 states that we should make all intrinsics available regardless of whether particular feature macros are defined or not. This is how today GCC and LLVM work. >...
my 2 cents, can we specify `priorityA+priorityB+crc' ? or even `priorityA+priorityA+crc' ? If we go with `priorityN` then I'd prefer to specify it with a formula instead of typing in...
> @DanielKristofKiss can you please explain a little more as I am not sure I understood. Are you suggesting we use an explicit priority syntax like the one for example...
sorry for the debug here, locally I can't reproduce the test failure( macos m1, same toolchain, same build steps )