iains added a comment. In D144844#4195633 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D144844#4195633>, @ChuanqiXu wrote:
>> However, "performance" also includes compilation speed in the 'no >> optimisation, debug' case - that is also considered very important. So, >> perhaps, the short-term approach should be (as @dblaikie suggested) to >> include the bodies for -O >= 3? > > I don't think so. I think "performance" refers to the runtime performance > generally. I don't believe the normal users will be happy if modules will > decrease the performance of their program in any means. So I think we should > include the bodies by default. I think I must be misunderstanding something here. The default for clang is to compile without optimisation - this benefits the compile-edit-debug cycle, by providing output that is closest to the original source, and quickest to compile. The user should not be expecting any optimisations to be applied unless they supply `-ON` (n fact, they might we complain if we optimise something that makes debugging harder). So, we should try to ensure that adding modules supports that model - and provides the quickest and closest to the original sources for the default options. If the user wants better optimisation (at the expense of longer compile times), then they provide `-ON`, right? 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
