smithp35 wrote: > > front-end error/warning as this is a front-end/source-level mistake, with > > better diagnostic control options available. > > There's a _lot_ of complicated logic required to determine, for each > architecture, which target features affect the ABI in which ways. Are you > suggesting that logic should be duplicated across all frontends? That seems > like a huge waste of effort to me. Most frontends are inevitably going to get > it subtly wrong, so in the end we have a ton more bugs than we did if there > was a central location where such know-how could be properly encoded, and > where there are enough people that can confidently answer ABI questions like > this.
It is a tradeoff. Yes it means redoing effort in front-ends, but it can mean a better experience for the end-user, and to me that is often more important than the work that we do as toolchain developers. I'm not saying I've definitely got the balance right in this case which is why I invite more opinions :-) An error in the backend does not have a lot of context. In some cases it may end up triggering on a large LTO build without any source file information given in the error message. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/111334 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
