[PATCH] D80716: [AArch64]: BFloat Load/Store Intrinsics&CodeGen

[Momchil Velikov via Phabricator via llvm-commits]

chill added inline comments.


================
Comment at: llvm/test/CodeGen/AArch64/aarch64-bf16-ldst-intrinsics.ll:264
+; Function Attrs: argmemonly nounwind readonly
+declare { <8 x bfloat>, <8 x bfloat> } @llvm.aarch64.neon.ld2lane.v8bf16.p0i8(<8 x bfloat>, <8 x bfloat>, i64, i8*) #3
+
----------------
LukeGeeson wrote:
> SjoerdMeijer wrote:
> > LukeGeeson wrote:
> > > arsenm wrote:
> > > > Why is the IR type name bfloat and not bfloat16?
> > > The naming for the IR type was agreed upon here after quite a big discussion. 
> > > https://reviews.llvm.org/D78190
> > I regret very much that I didn't notice this earlier... I.e., I noticed this in D76077 and wrote that I am relatively unhappy about this (I think I mentioned this on another ticket too).
> > Because like @arsenm , I would expect the IR type name to be bfloat16.
> > 
> > Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't see a big discussion about this in D78190. I only see 1 or 2 comments about `BFloat` vs `Bfloat`.
> I cannot see a discussion about the IR type name per-se but I can see you were both involved in the discussion more generally.
> 
> I am concerned that this patch is the wrong place to discuss such issues, and that we should bring this up in a more appropriate place as you mention so that this patch isn't held back.
I don't see a compelling reason for the name to be `bfloat16` or `bfloat3`, etc. Like other floating-point types (`float`, `double`, and `half`), the name denotes a specific externally defined format, unlike `iN`.


CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D80716/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D80716