jdoerfert accepted this revision. jdoerfert added a comment. This revision is now accepted and ready to land. Herald added subscribers: jurahul, kuter.
In D78862#2027254 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D78862#2027254>, @arsenm wrote: > In D78862#2012560 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D78862#2012560>, @jdoerfert wrote: > > > I think this is an improvement over the status quo and it looks fine to me. > > > > @arsenm I agree that we should tie this to the data layout (or at least > > should try) but I guess there are open questions to answer and code to > > write. > > I propose to accept this and work on the DL patch after. WDYT? > > > Seems ok, but it's still burning an enum value which I guess isn't super > important. With the datalayout property, we might really want the inverse > attribute Given that we lifted the limits on enum attributes I don't think this cost is high. Since we do not have a scheduled alternative, I think this should land. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D78862/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D78862 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
