https://github.com/nikic commented:
> I realize this is not the approach you had in mind, but it would at least be > nice to hear the reasoning as to why something more elaborate would be > preferred? Basically, because this is an ABI-dependent property, so we should let the existing ABI handling code deal with it. I can't think of an example where something would go wrong in *this* particular case, because I don't think any target uses zeroext for `int`. But for `unsigned` there is a mix of targets using zeroext or signext (or neither of course). https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/111740 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
