xiongji90 added a comment. In D144454#4163688 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D144454#4163688>, @rjmccall wrote:
> I see. If we're going to take the target-independent values specified by > `FLT_ROUNDS`, then the original builtin name is more appropriate. Of course, > this has the disadvantage of not allowing target-specific values that might > exist beyond those specified in the standard; are we pretty certain that's > not a problem in practice? > > Working on x86, ARM, and AArch64 is great, but I'm a little worried about > adding another builtin that works only on major targets and probably crashes > on others. I suppose we've got some number of those already, though. Hi, @rjmccall @sepavloff Which name do you prefer for this builtin? __builtin_flt_rounds_set or __builtin_set_flt_rounds? Does LLVM have mechanism to restrict builtin to work only on specific targets? If not, can we check add target check code to guard just like: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/main/clang/lib/CodeGen/CGBuiltin.cpp#LL4685C8-L4685C8 And although the builtin should work automatically for arm and aarch64, I didn't have environment to verify, can I enable it only for x86 currently? Thanks very much. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D144454/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D144454 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
