arsenm wrote: > 1. Usually (or at least AFAIK) optimization passes won't consider datalayout > automatically,
The datalayout is a widely used global constant. There's no option of "not considering it" > Do you plan to go over LLVM passes adding this check? There's nothing new to do here. This has always existed > 2. Some existing and future extensions might allow extra bit widths for > integers. This does not mean arbitrary integer bitwidths do not work. The n field is weird, it's more of an optimization hint. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/110695 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
