dexonsmith added a comment. In D70366#1970758 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D70366#1970758>, @jdoerfert wrote:
> In D70366#1970526 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D70366#1970526>, @dexonsmith > wrote: > > > In D70366#1970299 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D70366#1970299>, > > @LevitatingLion wrote: > > > > > Maybe we can add an additional string attribute when adding the noinline > > > attribute to functions which are not marked noinline in the source code, > > > something like "noinline-added-by-clang". I don't know if that's a > > > legitimate use case for a string attribute, but it wouldn't be very > > > invasive. What do you think? > > > > > > Another option (not sure if it's better) would be to add a `noopt` LLVM > > attribute that Clang adds for `-O0` instead of `noinline`. Two > > possibilities would be to update the inliner to pay attention to that as > > well (with special logic for `flatten`), or to change the always-inliner to > > add `noinline` to anything marked `noopt`. > > > `noopt == optnone`? Both `optnone` and `noinline` are set in O0, so we could > just not place `noinline` (I think). Sure, that could work. Or the noflatten idea is another possibility. It would be good to hear what others think. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D70366/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D70366 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
