philnik added a comment. In D114425#3209794 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D114425#3209794>, @craig.topper wrote:
> What does the builtin due if __int128 isn't supported? Even though the type > isn't legal the builtin can still be called with a narrower type that would > be implicitly converted. Does that work correctly? Would the correct behavior be to throw an error in that case? Or what exactly do you expect? Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D114425/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D114425 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
