Sounds good. It's a soft objection, mostly because if nothing else it puts us back where we were subject to some latent bugs, but perhaps not as bad as before (though I don't find having to use an assert build reassuring ;)
Anyhow, go ahead and we'll figure out something else. On Tue, Apr 27, 2021, 7:23 PM Reid Kleckner via Phabricator < revi...@reviews.llvm.org> wrote: > rnk accepted this revision. > rnk added a comment. > This revision is now accepted and ready to land. > > In D100776#2703273 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D100776#2703273>, @echristo > wrote: > > > As is mentioned there are tradeoffs around this though: a) it does make > it harder to have clang generate code without a backend or llvm itself > around, b) it does have a dependency when none existed. > > > > So, if this is really causing some consternation then we can pull back > and reinstate what we had, but it was a direction around solving a set of > hard to find bugs. > > > > Thoughts? > > I'm reading this as a soft, non-blocking objection. The concern that the > layouts and prefix might get out of sync is addressed: there are asserts > that they agree when the backends are linked in. > > So, under that interpretation, and without further guidance from > @echristo, I think we should go forward. If that's not the right > interpretation, we can always revert. > > > CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION > https://reviews.llvm.org/D100776/new/ > > https://reviews.llvm.org/D100776 > >
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
