tingwang added a comment. In D133338#3786406 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D133338#3786406>, @nemanjai wrote:
> I am not crazy about adding the Boolean parameter here or about the name. > Seems somewhat unclear when a caller wants to pass `true` there. > > What I think would be a more robust solution would be to use the same logic > that decides whether to coerce the struct argument to an integer type. It > seems that any big endian ABI that does this would want to ensure the access > is on the right side. > > Ultimately what I am getting at here is that we consider how the caller > passes the value and how the callee accesses it separately - which is what > leads to problems like this. Can we decide using the same function for the > caller and the callee? I think this requirement is nontrivial for me right now, so I added TODO comments. Can we take this as a workaround for the issue #55900? Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D133338/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D133338 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
