wangpc added a comment. In D157476#4575656 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D157476#4575656>, @eopXD wrote:
> You do agree with my latest comment that `long` is the righteous fix, right? > :) Oh sorry, somwhow I missed it. I still think that using the element type is the right way. Because user will know the range of effective inserted value. For example: vint16m1_t __riscv_vslide1up_vx_i16m1 (vint16m1_t src, int16_t value, size_t vl); vint16m1_t __riscv_vslide1up_vx_i16m1 (vint16m1_t src, long value, size_t vl); We can know the range is [-32768, 32767] for the first intrinsic. When the user pass an argument larger than that(e.g. `__riscv_vslide1up_vx_i16m1(src, 0xFFFFFFFF, vl)`), the compiler can warn the user and may avoid unexpected behaviors. For the second intrinsic, we can pass a `long` value. But for SEW<XLEN, the inserted value will be truncated. For example, `__riscv_vslide1up_vx_i16m1(src, 0xFFFFFFFF, vl)` won't report any warning, but the inserted value is just `0xFFFF`, which may be unexpected/confused. That's just my thought. Issue or proposal can be raised in Github repo if we can come up with an agreement here. :-) Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D157476/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D157476 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
