rengolin added a comment. In http://reviews.llvm.org/D9913#202491, @hfinkel wrote:
> > That's my point. If this patch makes sense on its own, we should mark them > > all. > > > I agree. Ok, let's just do it then. I believe this is clearly a typo/forgotten kind of thing. Charlie, can you mark all of the affected builtins with "F"? > I don't understand this part of the conversation. > include/clang/Basic/Builtins.def says: > > // F -> this is a libc/libm function with a '__builtin_' prefix added. > // f -> this is a libc/libm function without the '__builtin_' prefix. It > can > // be followed by ':headername:' to state which header this function > // comes from. > > > this patch does not mark these with 'f', but with 'F', and they are indeed > libm functions with __builtin_ added. That's the point. "f" is for libc functions that don't get overriden by the compiler with a "__builtin_" prefix. All of these *do* have prefix, so they need to be marked as "F". The point here being that __builtin_isnan, for instance, is a builtin that can be either lowered as a sequence of instructions, or as a libc call to isnan, depending on the target. This is precisely the meaning of "F". cheers, --renato http://reviews.llvm.org/D9913 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
