rnk added a comment. In D110257#3134001 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D110257#3134001>, @JonChesterfield wrote:
> So you won't articulate or document the new invariant and you think there's a > llvm-dev discussion that says we can't verify the invariant which you won't > reference, but means you won't add this to the verifier. > > Request changes doesn't really work after you've applied the patch. > > @rnk do you object to me reverting this? I don't think we can add an > invariant to IR which is undocumented and unverified/unverifiable and the > patch author seems opposed to fixing either omission. Is this patch actually causing issues in practice? I think the decision to revert should be based on that. I don't think this patch creates a new invariant that other passes have to respect, if that's what you're worried about. The way I see it, this patch just makes AMDGPU IR output look "nicer". Middle-end passes are free to insert casts between static allocas if they want. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D110257/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D110257 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
