You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Pasting from #6725 (comment) which says for for reg_is_pointer_sized():
The docs say "Returns true iff it refers to a pointer-sized general-purpose register."
And x86 only checks GPRs.
However: reg_to_pointer_sized()'s implementation handles SIMD and I think we should clarify its docs to include expanding SIMD: more like "reg_to_container_sized()" or sthg.
Does that mean we'd want reg_is_pointer_sized() to really be reg_is_largest_containing_size()?
Should we add the new names and deprecate the old, or add the new and keep the old, or just update the docs and the is_ implementation? PR 6725 is implementing is_ for SIMD for aarch64.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Pasting from #6725 (comment) which says for for reg_is_pointer_sized():
The docs say "Returns true iff it refers to a pointer-sized general-purpose register."
And x86 only checks GPRs.
However: reg_to_pointer_sized()'s implementation handles SIMD and I think we should clarify its docs to include expanding SIMD: more like "reg_to_container_sized()" or sthg.
Does that mean we'd want reg_is_pointer_sized() to really be reg_is_largest_containing_size()?
Should we add the new names and deprecate the old, or add the new and keep the old, or just update the docs and the is_ implementation? PR 6725 is implementing is_ for SIMD for aarch64.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: