Hopefully this patch fixed it: http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20080128/057665.html
Please verify. Thanks. Evan On Jan 28, 2008, at 1:02 AM, Duncan Sands wrote: > Hi Evan, > >> I did check in two test cases in a subsequent commit. Those used to >> choke llvm-gcc. I'll look at this today. It's obvious not all zero >> sized aggregates are not created equal. > > I guess you mean this: > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20080121/057572.html > > I can understand that in function calls you don't want to pass zero- > sized structs > by copy. What I don't understand is why this requires modifying the > way gcc structs > are converted to llvm structs. Surely when generating function > parameters, you can > just skip the zero-sized structs at that point. > > Best wishes, > > Duncan. _______________________________________________ llvm-commits mailing list llvm-commits@cs.uiuc.edu http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvm-commits
