[PATCH] D59657: [LangRef] Clarify codegen expectations for intrinsics with fp/integer-only overloads

[Matt Arsenault via Phabricator via llvm-commits]

arsenm added inline comments.


================
Comment at: llvm/docs/LangRef.rst:10397-10401
+Intrinsic overloads based solely the distinction between whether the
+types are integer or floating point should not be relied upon for
+correct code generation. In such cases, the recommended approach when
+defining intrinsics is to create separate integer and FP intrinsics
+rather than rely on overloading.
----------------
I feel like this could be rephrased more generally as something along the lines of there shouldn't be a major semantic change in the operation based on the overloaded type. The integer/FP distinction is one particular example. I'm trying to come up with a definition for "major semantic change" means though.

I have a sort of counterexample though in the AMDGPU buffer intrinsics. If the return type is a struct, it changes the instruction slightly, but not in a problematic/ambiguous way like the FP/integer type.


Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D59657/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D59657