erichkeane wrote: > > It seems to me this is a case where we're trying to work -around an llvm > > bug? Should we just be fixing that instead? > > You mean, revert https://reviews.llvm.org/D86310 ? Making any changes in LLVM > here is painful; I'd rather not revisit that. CC @hvdijk @rnk
I didn't, no, but I hadn't seen all that conversation. Aaron has explained a bit more of the context here, and I'm finding myself pretty confused/out of the loop. As this is effectively all codegen, I suspect you, plus your CCs are the best ones to review this. I don't see a problem except for the FPGA folks to this, though between: 1- FPGA folks rarely/ever use large types like this if they can help it. 2- The FPGA group being spun off from Intel, meaning the original stakeholders are all gone and 3- Me no longer being at Intel I don't think I have strong feelings here. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/91364 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
