kbelochapka wrote: > > The main drawback is that it would require substantial changes to the > > existing implementation. For example, LTO.h would likely need to be > > rewritten almost entirely, potentially affecting 70% or more of the file. > > You just need to replace LTO::Config and it should not affect anything in > LTO.h? The switch should just be NFCI. > > I don't think tablegen is needed since everything in LTO::Config is very > simple. You might still want to do the round trip if there are some > customized handling that is not handled by macro.
Hi @cachemeifyoucan , It's not just lto::Config; we would also need to handle all of the classes/structures that are members of lto::Config, such as llvm::TargetOptions. That said, I think the idea is fundamentally sound. I will proceed to implement a prototype, which should give us a clearer picture of how much of existing code would need to be refactored. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/219894 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
