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 > [discourse.llvm.org/t/rfc-clang-assembly-object-equivalence-for-files-with-inline-assembly/78841](https://discourse.llvm.org/t/rfc-clang-assembly-object-equivalence-for-files-with-inline-assembly/78841)
So far there has only been one reply from @efriedma-quic . Shall we go ahead? > I care less about error messages than outright miscompiles. We don't have miscompiles, just the difference in whether a `.if` construct can be assembled. 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
