tmgross added a comment. In D86310#4597359 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D86310#4597359>, @hvdijk wrote:
> In D86310#4596841 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D86310#4596841>, @tmgross wrote: > >> I think that D158169 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D158169> seems to have fixed >> clang as well; after applying both patches, clang gcc and rustc all seem to >> agree. > > Interesting. I cannot see how it would, I may be missing something; I will > check when I am able. D158169 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D158169> landed today, I confirmed that the current main (with D158169 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D158169>) makes Clang <-> GCC works but LLVM still fails without this patch. Doesn't clang just wind up going through the same tablegen as LLVM, so it makes sense that both would be fixed? > In D86310#4596932 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D86310#4596932>, @tmgross wrote: > >> Was your failure in https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=50198 fixed with >> these patches? > > Yes, it was (at least it was at the time that I initially commented). You mean this patch only right - how does that work? Looking closer at your comments there, it doesn't seem like `i128` changes would affect anything if the `f128` return alignment is the source of the problem. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D86310/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D86310 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
