On Mon, Nov 5, 2018 at 9:45 AM H.J Lu via Phabricator < revi...@reviews.llvm.org> wrote:
> hjl.tools added a comment. > > In https://reviews.llvm.org/D53919#1287510, @echristo wrote: > > > In https://reviews.llvm.org/D53919#1282994, @hjl.tools wrote: > > > > > In https://reviews.llvm.org/D53919#1282952, @efriedma wrote: > > > > > > > With both 3.3 and trunk (I don't have a 7.0 handy; I can build it if > it would be helpful): > > > > > > > > > Please try clang 2.6 on both testcases. > > > > > > From the releases: > > > > 23 Oct 2009 2.6 > > > > ... why would you care about a 9 year old version of clang? > > > It is about ABI consistency. When AVX isn't enabled, the old and > compilers should > use the same calling convention. > Seems like 3.3 to present should be sufficient. -eric
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
