MaskRay added a comment. In D130531#4644687 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D130531#4644687>, @aeubanks wrote:
> I'm not understanding why this doesn't also apply to "PIE Level", doesn't it > also follow the same reasoning? pic -> PIC is the same as pie -> PIE > > e.g. if you merge a small PIC and large PIC file, the resulting file would > only be guaranteed to work with a "large PIC executable" (unsure what the > right term is) and not a "small PIC executable", so if we say it's a large > PIC file, that's wrong since it wouldn't link into a "large PIC executable", > so we have to conservatively say it's a small PIC file. > and s/PIC/PIE for the same argument "PIE Level" is a bit of a misdesign. We should treat the value as a boolean and ignore 1/2 difference. "PIC Level" decides the small PIC vs large PIC difference, as well as the small PIE vs large PIE difference. I think "PIE Level" should use "Min" as well. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D130531/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D130531 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
