tejohnson added a comment. In D65009#1594009 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D65009#1594009>, @pcc wrote:
> Sorry, just realized this. If I do > > clang++ -c -flto a.cpp # "split" > clang++ -c -flto=thin b.cpp -fwhole-program-vtables # non-split > clang++ a.o b.o > > > this should fail, right? If I'm not mistaken, this patch series will cause > this to succeed. I think we need to change this patch so that it always sets > `EnableSplitLTOUnit` to 1 for regular LTO, then you can drop the other patch. This is a good point. We could detect and handle this during the LTO merging here, but I don't think it is worth it (it would essentially be treating regular LTO as split in any case). The change you suggested fixes the original bug, re running the llvm/clang tests now and will update the patches afterwards. Repository: rC Clang CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D65009/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D65009 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
