ChuanqiXu abandoned this revision. ChuanqiXu added a comment. In D138552#3951462 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D138552#3951462>, @dblaikie wrote:
>> And another problem here is, without LTO, the function definitions in other >> TU can't be inlined. But now, the function definitions in the module >> interface can be imported to the importee as AvaialableExternally linkage >> with optimization. The AvaialableExternally linkage is a special linkage >> which aims for the IPO. And the AvaialableExternally entities would be >> removed in the middle end after inlining. (I know there are arguments to >> remove the function definition in the module file.) So if we move not >> directly used things in .cpp files, the performance will be hurt. But it is >> not the case for modules (at least for now). > > Yeah, I think if we're planning to minimize pcms to the point where they > can't do code generation I guess we'll probably remove the indirect function > definitions/not use available externally, and rely on (Thin)LTO to provide > whole program optimization - so the guidance that modules reduces link time > wouldn't be true in that case. > > I think it's probably best to abandon this patch/not document/suggest that > this is a benefit people should expect from modules if it's one that'd go > away in the future anyway. Got it. You're correct : ) Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D138552/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D138552 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
