jacek added a comment. In D157547#4653477 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D157547#4653477>, @efriedma wrote:
> How important is that particular pattern? I think most patterns involving > assembly should be covered by some combination of naked functions, and > functions defined in separate assembly files, both of which avoid weird > questions about what the compiler should do when assembly tries to define a > function symbol. Thank for suggestions. We can indeed change that to naked functions (or separated assembly file when that's not suitable). We use full assembly declaration on other targets for compatibility reasons (which may be worth revisiting if that's still a problem and it's definitely not a concern in Arm64EC case). It may be nice to output some form of error instead of assert crash in those cases, but I guess that's a secondary concern at this point. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D157547/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D157547 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
