jhuber6 added a comment. In D133726#3785040 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D133726#3785040>, @JonChesterfield wrote:
> We can do this but should expect an increase in code size from having > multiple internalised copies of the same function. There may be an incidental > benefit if we can specialise some functions to the call site without > additional cloning. Address of the same functions from different TUs will be > inequal, which is wrong, but probably doesn't matter in practice. > > It does have the major advantage that mlink-builtin-bitcode patches up the > invalid IR on the fly, which is likely easier than changing the device libs > or making IR mcpu-agnostic. It will probably decrease code size in the final executable now that this will forcefully internalize all the `protected` functions in `ocml.bc` that were sticking around because LTO couldn't remove them due to visibility. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D133726/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D133726 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
