dblaikie added a comment.

In D93747#2488390 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D93747#2488390>, @tmsriram wrote:

> In D93747#2488387 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D93747#2488387>, @dblaikie wrote:
>
>> Seems alright to me - I think we've hashed out the deeper issues (missing 
>> opportunity for C functions which could/should be addressed by moving the 
>> implementation to the frontend, where those C functions can be mangled and 
>> then use linkageName to give them the same AutoFDO opportunities as C++ 
>> functions) here and elsewhere - but for what it is, the patch makes sense. 
>> I'd probably say drop the flag - " check if rawLinkageName is set and only 
>> set it when it is not null. " was implemented and seems that addressed the 
>> debug info issue without an awkward tradeoff between AutoFDO fidelity and 
>> debugging fidelity, so there doesn't seem to be a need to be able to 
>> configure this.
>
> Here is a suggestion for a plan forward. Let's get these patches along with 
> D94154 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D94154> in.  No correctness issues but a 
> missed opportunity.  I will work with @rnk and @dblaikie and send out a patch 
> where I move the uniqueification to clang?  That patch will also do linkage 
> name for C functions with mangled name when uniqueification is needed. Does 
> that sound reasonable?  As for timeline, I can do this in two weeks.

Sure sure - not urgent, just so long as it doesn't get lost.


Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D93747/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D93747

_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits

Reply via email to