nickdesaulniers added a comment. In D102742#2773954 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D102742#2773954>, @tejohnson wrote:
> 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? Good point; it won't work as intended on mismatch. Let me upgrade that to Error. 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
