steven.zhang added inline comments.
================ Comment at: clang/lib/Headers/altivec.h:13670 + ) +#elif defined(__VSX__) +#define vec_splats(N) \ ---------------- vddvss wrote: > steven.zhang wrote: > > I am not sure if this is by intention. It is not semantics the same with > > this change. Before the change, if VSX is off, and POWER8_VECTOR && > > __powerpc64__ is on, vector signed/unsigned long long, signed/unsigned > > __int128 is not a valid candidate of vec_splats. But with this patch, they > > are. > No intention to change semantics. But AFICT, we throw an error if > POWER8_VECTOR is on and VSX is off: > https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/master/clang/lib/Basic/Targets/PPC.cpp#L222 Hmm, we are making assumption that, POWER8_VECTOR enables the VSX, and it is true. Thank you for pointing out this. ================ Comment at: clang/test/CodeGen/pr44276.c:3 +// REQUIRES: powerpc-registered-target +// RUN: %clang -S -emit-llvm -target powerpc64-unknown-unknown -mcpu=pwr8 %s -o - | FileCheck %s + ---------------- The assembly output is not your test point. How about doing it as this: ``` // RUN: %clang_cc1 -S -emit-llvm -triple powerpc64-unknown-unknown -target-cpu pwr8 %s // expected-no-diagnostics ``` Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D80723/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D80723 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
