SSE2 intrinsics: gcc46 vs. clang contradiction

["C. Bergström"]

On 11/ 1/13 10:43 PM, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 01, 2013 at 07:46:45PM +0700, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote:
>> What adds to confusion, in their manual [1] Intel spells them differently
>> themselves: first, in the table, it says:
>>
>>    _mm_movpi64_epi64		Move		MOVDQ2Q
>>                ^^^^^
>>
>> Then later, when they describe what it does, it says:
>>
>>    __m128i _mm_movpi64_pi64(__m64 a)
>>                        ^^^^
>>    Moves the 64 bits of a to the lower 64 bits of the result, zeroing the
>>    upper bits.
> Microsoft (http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/has3d153(v=vs.90).aspx)
> defines these two:
>
>    _mm_movepi64_pi64		MOVDQ2Q			Move
>    _mm_movpi64_epi64		MOVQ2DQ			Move
>
> That is:
>
>    __m64 _mm_movepi64_pi64 (__m128i a);
>    MOVDQ2Q
>    r0 := a0 ;
>
>    __m128i _mm_movpi64_epi64 (__m64 a);
>    MOVDQ2Q
>    r0 := a0 ; r1 := 0X0 ;
>
> Cf. Intel's:
>
>    _mm_movepi64_pi64		Move			MOVDQ2Q
>    _mm_movpi64_epi64		Move			MOVDQ2Q
>
>    __m64 _mm_movepi64_pi64(__m128i a)
>    Returns the lower 64 bits of a as an __m64 type:	R0 := a0
>
>    __m128i _mm_movpi64_pi64(__m64 a)
>    Moves the 64 bits of a to the lower 64 bits
>    of the result, zeroing the upper bits:		R0 := a0, R1 = 0X0
>
> Assuming that both documents correctly assign instructions to function
> names (bonus clue: it also makes them symmetrical), then _mm_movpi64_pi64
> is indeed a typo and Clang's header is wrong, while GCC's is correct: it
> should read _mm_movpi64_epi64(), not _mm_movpi64_pi64().
Why isn't this being asked on the clang or llvm mailing list? Wouldn't 
this impact upstream as well?