MaskRay wrote: > Thanks for the additional context. My main concern is that we're undoing the > consensus of [reviews.llvm.org/D45164](https://reviews.llvm.org/D45164) which > if I've understood the comments properly was "There is a reasonable > expectation that compiled (not assembled) code should be identical, or at > least as close to the assembly output. > > I'm not hugely concerned about that personally as I don't think there are any > written guarantees and I come from a background of a toolchain that didn't > come close to that (assembler output was disassembled from object file), > however there were some strong opinions on the original change. > > Do we have any strong opinions from the other reviewers? > > If there is a RFC I suggest that it would be entitled something like "[RFC] > Clang assembly/object equivalence for files with inline assembly". If it is > worded in such a way that this is needed for the kernel and we want to check > for community input then if there is no response then we can go ahead.
Thanks for the suggestion. I created https://discourse.llvm.org/t/rfc-clang-assembly-object-equivalence-for-files-with-inline-assembly/78841 https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/91082 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
