arsenm added inline comments.
================ Comment at: clang/include/clang/Basic/BuiltinsAMDGPU.def:239 -TARGET_BUILTIN(__builtin_amdgcn_fdot2, "fV2hV2hfIb", "nc", "dot7-insts") +TARGET_BUILTIN(__builtin_amdgcn_fdot2, "fV2hV2hfIb", "nc", "dot10-insts") TARGET_BUILTIN(__builtin_amdgcn_fdot2_f16_f16, "hV2hV2hh", "nc", "dot9-insts") ---------------- rampitec wrote: > arsenm wrote: > > rampitec wrote: > > > arsenm wrote: > > > > I have even less idea what these numbers mean now than I did before. > > > > This is also a bitcode compatibility break > > > They actually never meant anything just because there is no system in the > > > support matrix. I know this one will need simultaneous update of the > > > device lib downstream. > > why not name these as just the exact instruction name? > This is legacy thing. When it first appeared it was a single instruction set. > Changing it now completely will break a lot of stuff. Then why bother renaming this? We really need to stop breaking feature names Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D142507/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D142507 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
