dyung wrote: > From reading the original bug, it seems this was a regression in LLVM 20.x? > If so I think we should probably err on the side of caution and not take this > change if there is any possibility of an ABI change (and also since it was > stated that there are work-arounds that can be applied). > > Would there be any strong objections to not taking this fix given that?
ping @AaronBallman @ilovepi https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/184039 _______________________________________________ llvm-branch-commits mailing list [email protected] https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-branch-commits
