nickdesaulniers added a comment. In D104342#2827847 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D104342#2827847>, @dblaikie wrote:
> Another thing you might want to check is linkonce_odr functions - I guess > you'll get an arbitrary choice between two linkonce_odr functions under LTO > where they have different warn-stack-size? Maybe there's a way/place to merge > and always pick the lower or upper value if there's one you think would be > more right? I've added an `llvm-link` test for this. I'm not sure it adds any signal though here; I think the answer to such a question is "don't do that." ================ Comment at: llvm/test/Transforms/Inline/warn-stack-size.ll:1 +; RUN: opt -passes=inline -S %s | FileCheck %s + ---------------- dblaikie wrote: > Nice to see the test - though I probably wouldn't bother adding this test if > this behavior already falls out of more general support in the inliner and > the way it already handles attributes - the general behavior is likely > already tested elsewhere? (though it'd be good to confirm that either in > tests and/or the inliner code itself) > > my original question was to confirm that the inliner already had accounted > for this situation in a way that was desirable & it looks like/sounds like it > is. `AttributeFuncs::areInlineCompatible` seems to define the disallow-list for mismatched function attributes. `AttributeFuncs::mergeAttributesForInlining()` seems to be the merging strategy for certain function attributes. I agree that this test just confirms that the implicit default merge strategy is used. I guess it would fail if someone unintentionally changed that, but I don't mind removing this test either. WDYT? Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D104342/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D104342 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
