jfb added a comment. In D79279#2015983 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D79279#2015983>, @rjmccall wrote:
> Most of the complexity of this patch is introduced by the decision to > type-check these calls with a volatile-typed parameter, which seems like it > does nothing but cause problems. If your goal is to make these functions do > the right thing when given arbitrary pointer types, I think you need to give > these calls special type-checking semantics. Done right, that will also let > you e.g. accept pointers into arbitrary address spaces. But I'm not sure how > good of an idea this actually is at base, since these builtins are typically > used for direct calls to their associated library functions. You mean: in `Builtins,def` allow a `?` modifier on `volatile` (so, `D?`) to denote overloading on `volatile`, and consume that overload directly while type checking? That seems fine to me. Just want to make sure that's what you have in mind. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D79279/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D79279 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
