yamt wrote: > > In terms of getting this landed and tested, I wonder which path we should > > take: > > > > 1. Land this now, without tests, then update emscripten then come back and > > flip the default, at which point the existing tests will get updated. > > 2. Duplicate/update the the existing tests to tests both modes, then delete > > those changes once we flip the default. > > > > Personally I think I'd be happy with (1) since this is a behind and > > experimental flag. > > What do others think? @aheejin ? > > Come to think of it, should we even introduce this experimental option? > Adding `if (NewOption) ... else ...` everywhere makes the code complicated. > Can we just do > > 1. Add library functions in emscripten > > 2. Replace the current logic in LLVM with new code. (Without > `if`~`else`). Tests can be updated with this. > > 3. Remove old library functions in emscripten. > ?
i implemented this way (`if-else`) becasue @sbc100 told me it's necessary for emscripten to support both methods for a short period. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/84137 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
