jfb added a comment. In D59254#1566711 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D59254#1566711>, @shawnl wrote:
> I think the essential functionality of this patch should be in LLVM and not > Clang, so that all front-ends can benefit. Too many generally useful things > are in Clang when they should be in LLVM (e.g. C ABI for ARM and x86; ranged > switch statements). I opened an upstream bug to discuss this. > https://github.com/clang-randstruct/llvm-project/issues/52 C and C++ layout decisions definitely belong in clang, not in LLVM. There might be opportunity to opt certain structures into re-layout through attributes, but generally speaking most of it needs to stay in clang. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D59254/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D59254 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
