jlebar wrote: > I was planning on updating this to use the new instrinsic for the newer > version. Alternatively we could make __activemask the builtin which expands > to both versions, but I'm somewhat averse since we should target the > instruction directly I feel.
Yes, I agree that the builtin shouldn't have a "polyfill". At least, the LLVM builtin should not have a polyfill -- I guess I'm neutral on whether the clang builtin does. You can change clang in this same patch if you want, but if you want to do it separately, that's also fine by me. I'll approve this one. I think that covers all my outstanding review requests from you? LMK if I missed any. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/79768 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
