search for: p200i8

> On Feb 24, 2016, at 09:32, David Chisnall via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > My gut feeling is that it’s not worth it. When we move from typed to untyped pointers, we’re going to change the mangling from something like p200i8 to just p200, which is already quite a bit cleaner, and actually looks cleaner to me than the version proposed in this patch. > > David +1 The prettiness of intrinsic mangling is irrelevant, especially since this will all change with typeless pointers anyway. -Matt

My gut feeling is that it’s not worth it. When we move from typed to untyped pointers, we’re going to change the mangling from something like p200i8 to just p200, which is already quite a bit cleaner, and actually looks cleaner to me than the version proposed in this patch. David > On 24 Feb 2016, at 17:28, Philip Reames via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > This probably needs broader discussion. We have an ex...

This probably needs broader discussion. We have an existing naming mechanism for polymorphic intrinsics; Elena is proposing a new one to avoid making the names for various load/store intrinsics particularly ugly. My personal take: 1) I like the cleaner naming scheme. 2) I'm not sure the additional complexity is worth it. (Not specific to the particular implementation proposed here.) 3) I