hfinkel added a comment. In http://reviews.llvm.org/D11815#224169, @echristo wrote:
> No, RESET_OPTION isn't the right way to do this either. For exactly this sort > of reason. You can't actually represent all of the code and options this way > in the IR. If you can't do that then it's a non-starter. Can you please be more specific, what is it that we cannot represent? TargetOptions represents the target-generic code-generation options for the current function (where the "current function" bit works because the options get reset based on the current function attributes). That's the design we have now. And sticking with that pattern, even if we're going to change the overall scheme later, is better than the code duplication and inconsistency proposed here. > -eric http://reviews.llvm.org/D11815 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
