jhuber6 wrote: > > I was planning on updating this to use the new instrinsic for the newer > > version. Alternatively we could make __activemask the builtin which expands > > to both versions, but I'm somewhat averse since we should target the > > instruction directly I feel. > > Yes, I agree that the builtin shouldn't have a "polyfill". At least, the LLVM > builtin should not have a polyfill -- I guess I'm neutral on whether the > clang builtin does. > > You can change clang in this same patch if you want, but if you want to do it > separately, that's also fine by me. I'll approve this one. I think that > covers all my outstanding review requests from you? LMK if I missed any.
Thanks for the reviews. I'll probably have one for `nanosleep` coming in soonish, but for now I believe you've got it covered. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/79768 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
