pengfei added a comment. In D109658#2996412 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D109658#2996412>, @craig.topper wrote:
> Does gcc use the same builtin name? Our general policy is to have the same > interface as gcc if we have a builtin. So if gcc has these builtins the > should work the same way. No. We don't sync with GCC on the builtin name during the development. We had a disscussion and decided to not keep them aligned due to 1) target specific builtins are compiler private names that no need to keep it compatible with other compilers; and 2) we already differentiate the target builtins with GCC long ago on the naming, masking etc. Currently, regardless the name, GCC uses the same C, A, B order with our existing implementation. https://gitlab.com/x86-gcc/gcc/-/blob/users/intel/liuhongt/independentfp16_wip/gcc/config/i386/avx512fp16intrin.h#L6672 > For IFMA I think I made them commutable by swapping the operands between the > builtin and the internal intrinsic using the handling for the > X86IntrinsicTable Is this one https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/80c8b80919e0049da32f018d98e4d75ff562cfa8? Do you mean I should add `Commutative` in IntrinsicsX86.td too? What's this flag used for? I saw we only add them in a few intrinsics. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D109658/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D109658 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
