nickdesaulniers wrote: > I'd be okay with introducing some form of "weak" builtin, where we model the > call as a builtin function while only doing some approximate verification of > the signature.
Is that feedback _for me_, or [in response](https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/231696#issuecomment-6176614178) to @ojhunt ? > I think this patch is missing serialization bits. CC @ChuanqiXu9 I don't follow, do you @efriedma-quic or @ChuanqiXu9 have more info? Ideally, I think landing this would improve: 1. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/228194 2. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/224979 But I don't want to hold up making forward progress on those if this PR is too contentious. @efriedma-quic I assume this PR is _an improvement_, but you're not as sure, please do let me know and I'll push for those 2 above PRs to land (by helping get them reviewed). https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/231696 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
