codemzs added a comment. In D150291#4338118 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D150291#4338118>, @tahonermann wrote:
>> I do wonder if we need two bfloat implementations, but for that I'll leave a >> comment on D149573 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D149573>. > > Given the discussions occurring in D149573 > <https://reviews.llvm.org/D149573>, let's hold off on landing this for now. > It is sounding like we might have direction for repurposing `__bf16` for > `std::bfloat16_t` (and a future `_BFloat16` C type; with `__bf16` retained as > an alternate spelling). If we go in that direction, then we would presumably > want a change that goes in the opposite direction of this patch; a change > that migrates "bf16" names towards "bfloat16". Let's focus on confirming that > direction first. I'll mark this as requesting changes for now while we figure > this out. Thank you for your guidance, @tahonermann. I agree it's prudent to establish a confirmed direction for reusing `__bf16` to implement `std::bfloat16_t` as an arithmetic type before proceeding. If we decide to take this route, I understand that we'll be looking towards a change that aligns "bf16" names more closely with "bfloat16". In the meantime, I will revert to my initial change in D149573 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D149573> which repurposed `__bf16` type, and present it for further discussion. This, along with a summary of the RFC discussion, should help us reach a consensus. I welcome any further insights or considerations you might think pertinent to this process. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D150291/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D150291 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
