vgvassilev wrote: > > @AaronBallman, to be fair, clang is testing the wasm features in terms of > > output. So this is wiring up a bunch of tested features that will allow > > execution. Clang generally does not test execution but output, so we are > > not creating a precedent here since that PR can be considered plumbing for > > downstream consumers. > > If we don't have community test coverage, we'll regress that plumbing for > downstream consumers. In general, we shouldn't claim we support something we > don't test. However, if there is a downstream consumer that agrees to be > actively responsible for repairing breakages, we sometimes allow it (e.g., > https://discourse.llvm.org/t/rfc-building-llvm-for-webassembly/79073)
I am not sure if we have the same definition for "claim". FWIW I am not saying we should put any of this on the website or elsewhere. We have a downstream consumer which intergrates the emscripten version of wasm [here](https://github.com/emscripten-forge/recipes/tree/main/recipes/recipes_emscripten/llvm). @derthorsten is my go-to person when it comes to emscripten and llvm. I believe they are quite sensitive about breakages. In any case we will develop tests in the CppInterOp project, too. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/86402 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
