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