dblaikie added a comment. Seem to recall @iains and others were concerned about the number of modules flags - this one I'd be inclined to suggest we shouldn't add if possible. If one way or the other is generally better - we should, at least initially, dictate that behavior entirely until someone can demonstrate divergent use cases that seem reasonable to support but must have different behavior here.
The performance of cross-module inlining could be achieved with something like ThinLTO if we were to lean in favor of not allowing cross-module inlining by default, for instance. But if there are particular idioms where cross-module inlining is disadvantageous, perhaps we can implement better ways for clang to detect them (or if they're undetectable, offer users a way to annotate their code, maybe). Could we key off -Os or -Oz or some other existing optimization/compile time tradeoff flags instead of introducing a new flag? Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D144844/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D144844 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
