ymandel added a comment. In D123586#3449291 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D123586#3449291>, @xazax.hun wrote:
> In D123586#3449256 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D123586#3449256>, @ymandel wrote: > >> In D123586#3446956 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D123586#3446956>, @xazax.hun >> wrote: >> >>> Yeah, this is a hard problem in general. This looks like a sensible >>> workaround for the short term, but I'm looking forward to a better >>> solution. I'm a bit worried that the memory model will need some upgrades >>> to properly solve this problem. >> >> Thanks for the quick review! Yes, I have my concerns as well. It seems like >> some amount of a) additional allocation stabilization/memoization, b) >> introduction of explicit widening operator and c) structural comparison will >> fully solve the problem. Solving this properly is a high priority. > > This is a complicated topic. If you have a plan I think it might be a good > idea to share it on the forums just in case someone has some input before > fully implementing it. Yes, definitely! At the least, I was hoping for *your* input before we start sending you patches. :) Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D123586/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D123586 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
