MDevereau wrote: > I really don't want the dependency chain that involves clang converting the > target feature list to an LLVM attribute string, then grabbing the attribute > out of the llvm::Function to parse it back into a feature list. That ties > together the target info and codegen in a weird circular way. > > I'd be okay with just "fixing" the x86 tests to use the larger count of > diagnostics, since the diagnostic is clearly broken already. Otherwise... > maybe codegen can cache the feature list?
I've opted to "fix" the tests, thanks. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/137624 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
