LuoYuanke added a comment. In D141899#4061150 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D141899#4061150>, @zixuan-wu wrote:
> In D141899#4058173 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D141899#4058173>, @LuoYuanke > wrote: > >> @zixuan-wu, changing x86_amx would break our internal code. May I know the >> motivation to change the type? > > The background is at https://reviews.llvm.org/D135202. No more motivation, > just to purify LLVM IR and demonstrate target extension. I think putting > target-specific type into LLVM IR was thoughtless at that moment. Considering > there was no better solution at that time such as target extension, it's a > workable workaround. But it should not keep going anymore if there is better > way. I think target extension type is nice, if it is introduced 2 years ago I would vote for it. However my concern is the compatibility issue as I explained. We need to be compatible to the IR that built by previous compiler, and be compatible to the 3rd software that based on the x86_amx type. I can't predict more risks for now if we replace an LLVM IR type, but I believe there is big risk hidden. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D141899/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D141899 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
