SjoerdMeijer added inline comments.
================
Comment at: llvm/test/CodeGen/AArch64/aarch64-bf16-ldst-intrinsics.ll:264
+; Function Attrs: argmemonly nounwind readonly
+declare { <8 x bfloat>, <8 x bfloat> }
@llvm.aarch64.neon.ld2lane.v8bf16.p0i8(<8 x bfloat>, <8 x bfloat>, i64, i8*) #3
+
----------------
chill wrote:
> LukeGeeson wrote:
> > SjoerdMeijer wrote:
> > > LukeGeeson wrote:
> > > > arsenm wrote:
> > > > > Why is the IR type name bfloat and not bfloat16?
> > > > The naming for the IR type was agreed upon here after quite a big
> > > > discussion.
> > > > https://reviews.llvm.org/D78190
> > > I regret very much that I didn't notice this earlier... I.e., I noticed
> > > this in D76077 and wrote that I am relatively unhappy about this (I think
> > > I mentioned this on another ticket too).
> > > Because like @arsenm , I would expect the IR type name to be bfloat16.
> > >
> > > Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't see a big discussion about this in
> > > D78190. I only see 1 or 2 comments about `BFloat` vs `Bfloat`.
> > I cannot see a discussion about the IR type name per-se but I can see you
> > were both involved in the discussion more generally.
> >
> > I am concerned that this patch is the wrong place to discuss such issues,
> > and that we should bring this up in a more appropriate place as you mention
> > so that this patch isn't held back.
> I don't see a compelling reason for the name to be `bfloat16` or `bfloat3`,
> etc. Like other floating-point types (`float`, `double`, and `half`), the
> name denotes a specific externally defined format, unlike `iN`.
> Like other floating-point types (float, double, and half), the name denotes a
> specific externally defined format,
Is the defined format not called bfloat16?
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D80716/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D80716
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
