MaskRay added a comment. In D154923#4491411 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D154923#4491411>, @efriedma wrote:
> If I follow correctly, this is basically undoing the splitting that was done > by the command that produced the bitcode file? Yes, undoing `llvm/lib/Transforms/IPO/ThinLTOBitcodeWriter.cpp` change that would make the output bitcode file not usable as an input for non-LTO use cases. > I guess that could be useful. But it requires either renaming your object > files from the default ".o" to ".bc", or explicitly passing "-x ir"? That > seems unintuitive. Maybe it's better to put this behind some explicit flag? Yes, specify `-x ir` or let the driver deduce the file type with the predefined extension `.bc`. I think this is a less common operation (compiling with LTO but then using as non-LTO), so I think adding another option seems not necessary. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D154923/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D154923 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
