[cfe-dev] [RFC] Having different behavior for __fp16 on RISC-V
Sjoerd Meijer via cfe-dev
cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
Thu Mar 11 08:00:23 PST 2021
Was a bit confused about this message (duplicate of the first mail?), but I guess you wanted to ping the thread?
I will reply to your last mail in the original thread, which I indeed didn't do yet.
From: cfe-dev <cfe-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org> on behalf of Kito Cheng via cfe-dev <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org>
Sent: 05 March 2021 08:23
To: cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org>
Cc: Evandro Menezes <evandro.menezes at sifive.com>; Yi-Hsiu Hsu <yihsiu.hsu at sifive.com>; Zakk Chen <zakk.chen at sifive.com>; Craig Topper <craig.topper at sifive.com>
Subject: [cfe-dev] [RFC] Having different behavior for __fp16 on RISC-V
RISC-V has a draft extension for half-precision proposed last year,
so we think adding a new type for that would be great to make this
easier to use that extension.
We found there is _Float16 and __fp16 types are supported on GCC and
Clang, but _Float16 has C++ supporting issues on GCC site, so we think
support both types is a reasonable choice to us.
However we would like have slight different behavior for __fp16 other
than ACLE: The evaluation format of __fp16 set same as _Float16,
which means no promotion are performed if there is no hardware half-precision
The only concern to us is it's defined differnt with clang's document,
so we would put this RFC patch here, to make sure it's OK for make
__fp16 has differnt behavior between differnt targets.
This patch contains document change only, implementation would be in
Corresponding phabricator entry for this RFC:
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the cfe-dev