[cfe-dev] [RFC] C++17 hardware constructive / destructive interference size

Fri May 25 11:47:25 PDT 2018

> On May 25, 2018, at 11:39 AM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote:
> 
> 
> On 05/25/2018 01:29 PM, JF Bastien via cfe-dev wrote:
>> Leave other targets as-is for now, since I can’t test them and I don’t know what the appropriate values would be. Hopefully this RFC will elicit feedback as to what the appropriate values are.
>> 
>> 
>> What do y’all think?
> 
> What does "as is" mean? I think that we should not define values at all until someone with knowledge of the target sets values. These become part of the target ABI, and I don't think that we want to accidentally make an ABI choice for a target.

Targets other than ARM and x86 would, for now, not define the builtin at all. I think that meets exactly your point, or at least my intent was do do exactly as you want.

>  -Hal
> 
> -- 
> Hal Finkel
> Lead, Compiler Technology and Programming Languages
> Leadership Computing Facility
> Argonne National Laboratory

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/attachments/20180525/6ab2273c/attachment.html>