ABataev added a comment. In D60583#1529885 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D60583#1529885>, @jdoerfert wrote:
> In D60583#1529882 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D60583#1529882>, @ABataev wrote: > > > In D60583#1529878 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D60583#1529878>, @jdoerfert > > wrote: > > > > > Why/Where did we decide to clobber the attribute list with "non-existent > > > function names"? > > > > > > This seems to me like an ad-hoc implementation of the RFC that is > > > currently discussed but committed before the discussion is finished. > > > > > > It has nothing to do with the RFC for a variant. It is a standard interface > > to communicate with the backend to generate vectorized versions of the > > functions. It relies on Vector ABI, provided by Intel and ARM, it follows > > the way it is implemented in GCC. There was an RFC for this long time ago > > which was accepted by the community and later implemented. > > > The RFC states, in a nutshell, let us add one attribute to identify all > vector variants. This patch adds all vector variants as attributes. Clearly, > these things are related. This new RFC just follows the scheme that was already accepted and implemented. As I understand, Francesco just wants to reuse the existing solution for SIMD isa of the pragma omp variant (or attribute clang variant) Repository: rC Clang CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D60583/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D60583 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
