similar to: __c11_atomic builtins' input requirements

On 4 Jun 2020, at 0:54, James Y Knight via llvm-dev wrote: > While MLIR may be one part of the solution, I think it's also the case > that > the function-ABI interface between Clang and LLVM is just wrong and > should > be fixed -- independently of whether Clang might use MLIR in the > future. > > I've mentioned this idea before, I think, but never got around to

On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 7:29 PM, Saleem Abdulrasool <compnerd at compnerd.org>wrote: > > >> But I agree with others that "integrated assembler" isn't a feature which >> should be observable in source code. >> >> On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 4:27 PM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org>wrote: >> >>> On a higher level,

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Jeremy Huddleston Sequoia (5): Xfuncproto.h: Define __has_feature() if it isn't already Xfuncproto.h: Define __has_extension() if it isn't already Xfuncproto: Add support for _X_DEPRECATED_MSG() macro Xfuncproto: Add support for _X_NOTSAN macro xproto 7.0.30 git tag: xproto-7.0.30

A bit of a brownbag release; sorry I didn't catch the typo in review. Keith Packard (2): Fix typo __has_extenstion -> __has_extension xproto 7.0.31 git tag: xproto-7.0.31 http://xorg.freedesktop.org/archive/individual/proto/xproto-7.0.31.tar.bz2 MD5: 16791f7ca8c51a20608af11702e51083 xproto-7.0.31.tar.bz2 SHA1: 779fa333c5522cca40ca810c25a8fa60b6ccedfb xproto-7.0.31.tar.bz2

First, I would assume this would be better spelled as: __has_feature(integrated_assembler) But I agree with others that "integrated assembler" isn't a feature which should be observable in source code. On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 4:27 PM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org>wrote: > On a higher level, there's the quality issue. People should test for >