hoy added a comment. In D93747#2488399 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D93747#2488399>, @dblaikie wrote:
> 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. Sounds good to me, thanks for all the in-depth discussions! 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
