tejohnson added a comment. In D102742#2767569 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D102742#2767569>, @nickdesaulniers wrote:
> Obviously needs work/cleanup, changes to x86, and tests, but posting for > early feedback about module level attributes vs function level attributes, or > possibly something else. I tested this quickly with thin LTO of the Linux > kernel and it worked. I haven't looked through in too much detail, but I see you have the module flag type set as Warning on conflict. I guess the answer to module level vs function level depends on whether it is valid to link together files compiled with different values of these flags and if so what the expected behavior should be. How does this work on non-LTO? If it works just fine, i.e. the functions from the modules with one value are compiled ok with that value and linked with functions compiled effectively with another value, then that would point to a function attribute so you can mimic the mix-and-match behavior. If it is unexpected, then perhaps better to keep as a module flag but Error? With Warning, the value from the first module being linked is used - would that be surprising? Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D102742/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D102742 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
