gonzalobg wrote: > My biggest concern here is the names; gcc defined the original set of > __atomic_ names, so we could end up with name conflicts depending on what > they do.
Agreed: - What's the best forum to align on the names between llvm and gcc? - Who are the main stakeholders to involve? My hope is that we'll pick the exact same naming style as atomic min/max, but instead of min/max these new builtins will use: `fminimum`/`fmaximum`, `fminimum_num`/`fmaximum_num` instead. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/187139 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
