pengfei added a comment. In D136919#3904925 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D136919#3904925>, @RKSimon wrote:
> What are the rules on this? Do we just handle this as an ABI breaking change > and document it in the release notes - or do we need to provide any > auto-upgrade path (with a warning?)? TBH, I don't have a good idea. It supposes to be Itanium ABI problem which I know little about. @ldionne WDYT? I also put an RFC in the discourse <https://discourse.llvm.org/t/rfc-using-mangle-name-df16b-for-x86-bf16-type/66256>, but no response so far. The GCC proposal <https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-September/602062.html> suggests for ARM/AArch64 as well. They should have the same problem like us since they used `u6__bf16` for several versions, but I don't know any progress so far. I want to get some feedback by this and I can discuss my GCC colleagues to see if we can change it back in GCC if this is not a good direction. There are two reasons I get so far: 1. It is a ABI breaking change to LLVM and other targets; 2. A mangled name of `__bf16` will be demanged as `std::bfloat_t`, which might confuse the user; Welcome for suggestions~ Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D136919/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D136919 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
