karka228 wrote: > Sorry for the delayed response, this fell off my radar (thanks @Endilll for > mentioning this after meeting with @hazohelet!).
No problem. As I wrote above I work in an out of tree backend and I have already implemented this in our downstream repo. Our customer that requested this already have this feature. To me this is not at all urgent. > This would be novel but might not be a terrible approach. I'm not convinced > that #3 is a particularly good design (and #6 doesn't seem critical to me > either), but I think modifying tablegen to improve support here would be a > heavy lift for little benefit. I'd say let's try that approach and see how we > like it, and go from there. WDYT? Sounds good. I think what is currently implemented in this pull request use @hazohelet idea with the dummy warning. As this was started in December I think I have to rebase this onto a more recent main branch. I will look through the code in the pull request (as it was a while ago since I looked at this) and do the rebase ... https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/74440 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
