ebevhan added a comment. > Well, the documentation mismatch is worth fixing even if the code isn't. But > I think at best your use-case calls for weakening the assertion to be that > any existing address space isn't *different*, yeah.
Alright, I'll give that a shot. > Separately, I'm not sure that's really the right representation for a Harvard > architecture (which is what I assume you're trying to extend Clang to > support); I think you should probably just teach the compiler that function > pointers are different. Well, we've already implemented it and it's been running in our downstream for a while without issues at this point. We just figured it was less work to use the existing address space support for it than to hack special cases all over the place for functions and function pointers. Repository: rC Clang https://reviews.llvm.org/D47627 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
