sdesmalen-arm wrote: > The lowering seems sane to me, but I'm not familiar enough with pre-existing > discussions to have a useful opinion. One thing I do wonder is whether it > would be clearer to have names that immediately distinguish between ordered > and unordered reductions. E.g. > > * __builtin_reduce_fadd_unordered` > * __builtin_reduce_fadd_ordered`
I agree it makes sense to reflect the ordering in the name. My suggestion would be to define the ordered builtin expliclitly as being ordered (e.g. `__builtin_reduce_ordered_addf`), and to leave that out for the other builtin (e.g. `__builtin_reduce_addf`), to give the compiler the freedom to pick any ordering. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/176160 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
