scottconstable wrote: > I haven't received a reply for my concerns I commented at [#117121 > (comment)](https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/117121#issuecomment-2502346476) > and [#117121 > (comment)](https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/117121#issuecomment-2516251353), > and they still remain for the alternative proposal. > > I'd recommend working on better defining the problem, and then working on a > well-defined solution for the problem that doesn't affect or conflict with a > currently well-defined solution to a different problem (i.e., KCFI).
@rcvalle I think that https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/117121#issuecomment-2516251353 isn't relevant for the alternative proposal in https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/121070 because that proposal does not attempt to prevent cross-arity collisions. Do you agree? Or have I mis-understood your concern? I'm not sure whether https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/117121#issuecomment-2502346476 is relevant for the alternative proposal. Please feel free to discuss at https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/121070. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/117121 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
