samitolvanen added a comment. In D104058#2883804 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D104058#2883804>, @nickdesaulniers wrote:
> In D104058#2878083 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D104058#2878083>, @samitolvanen > wrote: > >> In D104058#2877631 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D104058#2877631>, >> @nickdesaulniers wrote: >> >>> Change LGTM, but I don't understand why the following tests are modified: >>> >>> - llvm/test/ThinLTO/X86/devirt2.ll >> >> This is needed to fix two `missing symbol resolution` errors that are caused >> by the aliases we added. > > I'm curious if this will lead to breakages with LTO in general? I suppose > not, since it's `llvm-lto2` that needs the explicit list of symbols that can > be linked against. No, this won't break LTO. >>> - llvm/test/Transforms/ThinLTOBitcodeWriter/split-internal2.ll >>> - llvm/test/Transforms/ThinLTOBitcodeWriter/split-vfunc-internal.ll >> >> And for these, we need to specify a target triple to use module inline >> assembly. According to pcc, there shouldn't be a real-world situation where >> the triple is missing, but these two tests don't currently specify one. > > Neither of these tests use module inline assembly though, AFAICT? The tests don't, but we add module inline assembly to create the aliases, which means that bitcode with type metadata will need a target triple for ThinLTO. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D104058/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D104058 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
