jcranmer-intel added a comment. In D127579#3588607 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D127579#3588607>, @iliya-diyachkov wrote:
> I think the return type information can be added in the next version of the > patch, however it should be attached to function declarations (not > definitions as it's done now), right? Do you think, declarations also require > information about argument types? Function declarations are more useful to get information than function definitions. A lot of the failures I'm currently seeing in my side of things appear to be due to not getting pointer types right when calling OpenCL/SYCL builtins causing interesting things to happen later on. There's another approach I've considered taking, which is rather than using a metadata-based approach, emitting `elementtype` for any pointer-valued arguments [it doesn't solve return values, though]. This does require more changes to LLVM to let such attributes work on non-intrinsic functions, but it may end up working smoother than trying to reparse C types as LLVM types. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D127579/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D127579 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
