nikic added a comment. In D124504#3476562 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D124504#3476562>, @ChuanqiXu wrote:
> In D124504#3476537 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D124504#3476537>, @nikic wrote: > >> How does it block your work? Tests currently still use `-no-opaque-pointers` >> to avoid breaking this mode. I think it's generally okay to drop the option, >> but I'm a bit unclear about the motivation in this case -- do you want to >> make a change that would be incompatible with typed pointers? > > The motivation is that I want to insert an intrinsic for TLS variable. The > whole background could be found at: > https://discourse.llvm.org/t/address-thread-identification-problems-with-coroutine/62015 > > The signature of the intrinsic is `ptr @intrinsic.name(ptr)`. And I must add > one bitcast if I can't use opaque-pointer. It looks like opaque pointer is > enabled by default now: > https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/86c770346c26ce4c9abf5a5b7ab4b5bbfdcf9d78/clang/include/clang/Driver/Options.td#L5567-L5573 > > So I feel like it is better to remove the `--no-opaque-pointers` option. I > could add a bitcast to workaround if this is not wanted. Maybe the word > `block` is not suitable here. In that case, I'd recommend inserting the bitcast for now, if it's not too much complication. Also, you might want to consider using an overloaded intrinsic, in which case a bitcast is not necessary (using an overloaded intrinsic would also allow pointers of different address spaces, not sure if that's relevant here). Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D124504/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D124504 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
