aaron.ballman added a comment. In D88905#3362347 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D88905#3362347>, @kaz7 wrote:
> At the beginning, this implementation extends `vector_type` attribute which > is GCC's attribute. So, this may cause future conflicts with GCC when they > extend it. But, now this patch uses it's own `ext_vector_type` attribute. > So, basically this modification is safe against to the C/C++ future extension > and the GCC future extension, in my honest opinion. > > Is it OK to accept this patch? Or is there anything we need to consider? I > understand that this is a language extension, so it not easy to say OK... > But, this patch spent 1 year and a half almost. At a minimum, I think the patch needs to be rebased onto the current trunk. However, I don't know of a reason why this patch cannot proceed. I'd be curious whether the codegen for ext_vector_type of N bools is the same as for N `unsigned _BitInt(1)` (naively, I'd expect them to be equivalent). Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D88905/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D88905 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
