SignExtendIOp only allows Signless operands but it seems reasonable to also allow
signed operands.
This revision relaxes the semantics.
Details
Details
- Reviewers
rriddle antiagainst
Diff Detail
Diff Detail
- Repository
- rG LLVM Github Monorepo
Event Timeline
Comment Actions
This is a major shift behind the rationale of the standard dialect, I would like to see an RFC for this. We have an explicit part of the rationale for only using signless integers.
Comment Actions
See the rationale here: https://mlir.llvm.org/docs/Rationale/Rationale/#integer-signedness-semantics
This has been the rationale since the beginning, so if we change it we should have discussion as to why.
Comment Actions
Thanks, I added a post about this to the discussion in https://llvm.discourse.group/t/rfc-vector-dialects-neon-and-sve/2284/7 which triggered this PR.