rjmccall added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D47627#1127716, @ebevhan wrote:
> > Well, the documentation mismatch is worth fixing even if the code isn't. > > But I think at best your use-case calls for weakening the assertion to be > > that any existing address space isn't *different*, yeah. > > Alright, I'll give that a shot. > > > Separately, I'm not sure that's really the right representation for a > > Harvard architecture (which is what I assume you're trying to extend Clang > > to support); I think you should probably just teach the compiler that > > function pointers are different. > > Well, we've already implemented it and it's been running in our downstream > for a while without issues at this point. We just figured it was less work to > use the existing address space support for it than to hack special cases all > over the place for functions and function pointers. I'm going to insist that you try it before you can upstream, I'm afraid. Repository: rC Clang https://reviews.llvm.org/D47627 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
