dblaikie added a comment. I don't think of this as a performance regression for users though - this functionality's never really "shipped" so we get to choose what the baseline is.
And I think a reasonable baseline to compare to isn't this implementation we don't think is ideal (because of the build invalidation issues, if nothing else, caused by having thick PCMs) - I think the baseline is what a users non-modular code is. And in non-modular code these non-inline functions would be in the implementation files, not able to cross-TU inline without LTO. I think not providing definitions of non-inline functions for cross-TU optimizations is not a regression, but exactly in-line with existing non-modular behavior, which is totally fine. 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
