ebevhan added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D53738#1283459, @rjmccall wrote:
> Well, it could be passed around through most code as some sort of > abstractly-represented intermediate "type" which could be either a QualType > or a fixed-point semantics. Sounds to me like you're describing a new `Type` that can contain an arbitrary fixed-point semantic :) It still feels like this just introduces inconsistencies into the form of the AST. If we do add this extra type object to the BO, won't people wonder why we use ImplicitCastExpr for non-fixedpoint operations but use the special `QualTypeOrFPSemantics BinaryOperator::ComputationType;` for fixedpoint operations even though they both have nearly the same semantic meaning (converting to a common type before doing the operation)? (The difference being that using the `ComputationType` requires you to cast back to the result type afterwards.) > > >> It might just be easier to store the full-precision info in BO directly. BO >> might be too common to warrant the size increase, though. >> FixedPointSemantics can probably be optimized to only take 32 bits. > > What you can definitely do is store a bit in BO saying that there's extra > storage for the intermediate "type". Is this similar to how ExtQuals works? How would this be implemented? >> As a side note, comparisons are still a bit up in the air. I don't think we >> came to a conclusion on whether they should be done in full precision or >> bitwise. The spec isn't clear. > > ...bitwise? The spec uses different wording for the arithmetic operations and comparison operations, and it's not entirely obvious what it means. For the arithmetic operators, it has the whole section on finding the full precision common type, but for comparisons it says: > When comparing fixed-point values with fixed-point values or integer values, > the values are compared directly; the values of the operands are not > converted before the > comparison is made. What 'directly' means in conjunction with 'the operands are not converted' is not clear. It's reasonable to assume that it either means comparing value-wise (so, the same as finding a common type that fits all values and then comparing; though this would obviously require conversion), or perhaps 'directly' means a bitwise (representation) comparison. The latter seems a bit farfetched to me, though. Repository: rC Clang https://reviews.llvm.org/D53738 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
