rnk accepted this revision. rnk added a comment. This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
In D100776#2703273 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D100776#2703273>, @echristo wrote: > As is mentioned there are tradeoffs around this though: a) it does make it > harder to have clang generate code without a backend or llvm itself around, > b) it does have a dependency when none existed. > > So, if this is really causing some consternation then we can pull back and > reinstate what we had, but it was a direction around solving a set of hard to > find bugs. > > Thoughts? I'm reading this as a soft, non-blocking objection. The concern that the layouts and prefix might get out of sync is addressed: there are asserts that they agree when the backends are linked in. So, under that interpretation, and without further guidance from @echristo, I think we should go forward. If that's not the right interpretation, we can always revert. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D100776/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D100776 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
