melver added a comment. In D104253#2817673 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D104253#2817673>, @void wrote:
> What are your thoughts on adding a `noprofile` function attribute in the FE? > @MaskRay suggested filing a bug with gcov (below) to get their take on it. > > > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/buglist.cgi?bug_status=__open__&component=gcov-profile&list_id=304970&product=gcc How similar is all this stuff? Looking at https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Instrumentation-Options.html If `no_instrument_function` is the catchall for this profile/gcov/pg instrumentation, I don't think anybody will object. The result is 1) pg/-fprofile/gcov stuff, 2) sanitizers. (1) is suppressible via `no_instrument_function`, (2) via `no_sanitize*`. This appears consistent vs. having `no_instrument_function`+`noprofile`+`no_sanitize*` As a user, this is the intuitive behaviour I'd expect at least. But asking GCC folks (Martin helped us with no_sanitize_coverage) for input is reasonable. ================ Comment at: clang/test/CodeGen/fprofile-instrument.c:5 + +int __attribute__((__no_instrument_function__)) +__attribute__((no_instrument_function)) ---------------- Only one of the spellings should be required. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D104253/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D104253 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
