Endilll wrote:
@RKSimon Not at the moment. The current goal is to reduce amount of
declarations in `Sema`, and target-specific functions are easy to move out and,
importantly, teach where new ones should be placed. No functional changes
intended.
I don't know much about our CodeGen, so I'm no
RKSimon wrote:
@endilll Thanks for working on this - out of interest are you intending to do
this for CGBuiltin as well? Is the plan to no longer have to include all target
builtins in all clang builds?
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/93098
___
https://github.com/Endilll closed
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/93098
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
xiangzh1 wrote:
+1 for this split job, thanks!
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/93098
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
llvmbot wrote:
@llvm/pr-subscribers-backend-x86
Author: Vlad Serebrennikov (Endilll)
Changes
This patch moves `Sema` functions that are specific for x86 into the new
`SemaX86` class. This continues previous efforts to split `Sema` up. Additional
context can be found in #84184 and #92682.
https://github.com/Endilll created
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/93098
This patch moves `Sema` functions that are specific for x86 into the new
`SemaX86` class. This continues previous efforts to split `Sema` up. Additional
context can be found in #84184 and #92682.
>From 662c3458
