r284060 - Implement MS _BitScan intrinsics

[Bruno Cardoso Lopes via cfe-commits]

On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 2:01 PM, Erik Schwiebert via cfe-commits
<cfe-commits at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> SGTM too. Regarding Duncan's last question -- I can't think of any such customer. :) If you all think the right thing for clang to do is to infer LLP64 behavior on LP64 (Darwin) + ms_extensions, then that is fine with me!

SGTM as well!

>
> Thanks all!
> Schwieb
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: dexonsmith at apple.com [mailto:dexonsmith at apple.com]
> Sent: Monday, June 12, 2017 1:55 PM
> To: Reid Kleckner <rnk at google.com>
> Cc: Saleem Abdulrasool <compnerd at compnerd.org>; Albert Gutowski <agutowski at google.com>; David Majnemer <david.majnemer at gmail.com>; cfe-commits <cfe-commits at lists.llvm.org>; Erik Schwiebert <eriksc at microsoft.com>
> Subject: Re: r284060 - Implement MS _BitScan intrinsics
>
>
>> On Jun 12, 2017, at 12:44, Reid Kleckner <rnk at google.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 7:31 PM, Saleem Abdulrasool <compnerd at compnerd.org> wrote:
>>> I'm worried about changing this signature all the time.  I suspect that it will cause the following to be emitted for valid code:
>>>
>>> warning: incompatible pointer types passing 'unsigned long *' to parameter of type 'unsigned int *' [-Wincompatible-pointer-types]
>>>
>>> Switching the signature on LP64 sounds much better to me.
>>
>> Right, we have to do this. It needs to be `long` on Windows.
>
> SGTM.  We'll go that way.

+1 here!

>> On Jun 8, 2017, at 12:21, Erik Schwiebert <eriksc at microsoft.com> wrote:
>>
>> It’s probably also better to not try to infer our weird desired behavior. It should probably be controlled by a specific driver directive, like “-fms-extensions-lp64-intrinsics” or something like that. Using a new directive means that nobody can accidentally get this behavior if they for some reason do want LLP64 behavior with Windows intrinsics.
>
> This seems overly complicated.  Is there a customer that:
> - is on LP64,
> - is using -fms-extensions,
> - is using these intrinsics, and
> - wants them to be 64-bit longs instead of 32-bit ints?
> Put another way: who would use these intrinsics on LP64 and *not* want to mimic LLP64?
>
> If everyone using the intrinsics on LP64 is going to have to specify -fms-extensions-lp64-intrinsics, then we should just imply it.
> _______________________________________________
> cfe-commits mailing list
> cfe-commits at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits



-- 
Bruno Cardoso Lopes
http://www.brunocardoso.cc