On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 2:01 PM, Erik Schwiebert via cfe-commits <cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org> wrote: > SGTM too. Regarding Duncan's last question -- I can't think of any such > customer. :) If you all think the right thing for clang to do is to infer > LLP64 behavior on LP64 (Darwin) + ms_extensions, then that is fine with me!
SGTM as well! > > Thanks all! > Schwieb > > -----Original Message----- > From: dexonsm...@apple.com [mailto:dexonsm...@apple.com] > Sent: Monday, June 12, 2017 1:55 PM > To: Reid Kleckner <r...@google.com> > Cc: Saleem Abdulrasool <compn...@compnerd.org>; Albert Gutowski > <agutow...@google.com>; David Majnemer <david.majne...@gmail.com>; > cfe-commits <cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org>; Erik Schwiebert > <eri...@microsoft.com> > Subject: Re: r284060 - Implement MS _BitScan intrinsics > > >> On Jun 12, 2017, at 12:44, Reid Kleckner <r...@google.com> wrote: >> >>> On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 7:31 PM, Saleem Abdulrasool <compn...@compnerd.org> >>> wrote: >>> I'm worried about changing this signature all the time. I suspect that it >>> will cause the following to be emitted for valid code: >>> >>> warning: incompatible pointer types passing 'unsigned long *' to parameter >>> of type 'unsigned int *' [-Wincompatible-pointer-types] >>> >>> Switching the signature on LP64 sounds much better to me. >> >> Right, we have to do this. It needs to be `long` on Windows. > > SGTM. We'll go that way. +1 here! >> On Jun 8, 2017, at 12:21, Erik Schwiebert <eri...@microsoft.com> wrote: >> >> It’s probably also better to not try to infer our weird desired behavior. It >> should probably be controlled by a specific driver directive, like >> “-fms-extensions-lp64-intrinsics” or something like that. Using a new >> directive means that nobody can accidentally get this behavior if they for >> some reason do want LLP64 behavior with Windows intrinsics. > > This seems overly complicated. Is there a customer that: > - is on LP64, > - is using -fms-extensions, > - is using these intrinsics, and > - wants them to be 64-bit longs instead of 32-bit ints? > Put another way: who would use these intrinsics on LP64 and *not* want to > mimic LLP64? > > If everyone using the intrinsics on LP64 is going to have to specify > -fms-extensions-lp64-intrinsics, then we should just imply it. > _______________________________________________ > cfe-commits mailing list > cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org > http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits -- Bruno Cardoso Lopes http://www.brunocardoso.cc _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
