MaskRay added a comment.
In D137217#3926601 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D137217#3926601>, @tejohnson wrote:
> @MaskRay wondering if this is a good change to make for ELF as well, wdyt?
Yes, I think this is a good idea and improves debuggability. The change is
non-trivial so so this patch focusing on the COFF part is good.
================
Comment at: lld/COFF/LTO.cpp:238
+ sys::path::append(path, directory,
+ outputFileBaseName + ".lto." + baseName);
+ sys::path::remove_dots(path, true);
----------------
What if two input bitcode files have the same basename, e.g. `dir1/a.obj` and
`dir2/a.obj`?
================
Comment at: lld/COFF/LTO.cpp:229
+ StringRef ltoObjName;
+ if (bitcodeFilePath == "ld-temp.o") {
+ ltoObjName =
----------------
tejohnson wrote:
> zequanwu wrote:
> > tejohnson wrote:
> > > This case should always be i==0 I think?
> > IIUC, "ld-temp.o" is the name of combined module. Do you mean there will be
> > only 1 combined module and it will always be the first task?
> Yes. So you don't need the handling for i==0 in the name in this case (you
> could probably assert that i==0).
This looks like a hack. `assert(i == 0)` will fail with
`-opt:lldltopartitions=2`: `buf[1]` will be called `ld-temp.o` as well.
In addition, if an input bitcode file is called `ld-temp.o` (for some reason
they don't use `.obj`, just `ld-temp.o`), `assert(i == 0)` will fail as well.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D137217/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D137217
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
