jfb added a comment. In D56760#1368216 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D56760#1368216>, @rsmith wrote:
> In D56760#1368054 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D56760#1368054>, @erik.pilkington > wrote: > > > So it seems like the GCC people want to keep `__builtin_object_size` static. > > > I don't see any evidence of that. Jakub said that modes 0-3 should stay > static, but that's in line with what we suggested. You'd originally asked: > Would it make sense to model this as an (optional) extra flag bit for > `__builtin_object_size` rather than as a new builtin? It'd seem reasonable to > me to ask on the gcc dev list if they'd be interested in such an extension to > their builtin -- if not, then we should use a new name, and something like > this seems fine to me. I agree Jakub wants to keep 0-3 static, but I didn't see a preference expressed for an extra bit versus `__builtin_dynamic_object_size`. Given this, which direction do you want to take? Repository: rC Clang CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D56760/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D56760 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
