https://github.com/ilovepi closed
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/75079
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
https://github.com/nikic approved this pull request.
LGTM -- I think this change is clearly right, independently of the ModuleID
issue.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/75079
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lis
teresajohnson wrote:
Added a comment to that issue, I think it would be good to understand why
unified LTO is not expected in that case (for the assertion).
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/75079
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists
llvmbot wrote:
@llvm/pr-subscribers-clang
Author: Paul Kirth (ilovepi)
Changes
Since FatLTO now uses the UnifiedLTO pipeline, we should not set the ThinLTO
module flag to true, since it may cause an assertion failure. See
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/70703 for context.
--
llvmbot wrote:
@llvm/pr-subscribers-clang-codegen
Author: Paul Kirth (ilovepi)
Changes
Since FatLTO now uses the UnifiedLTO pipeline, we should not set the ThinLTO
module flag to true, since it may cause an assertion failure. See
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/70703 for cont
https://github.com/ilovepi created
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/75079
Since FatLTO now uses the UnifiedLTO pipeline, we should not set the ThinLTO
module flag to true, since it may cause an assertion failure. See
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/70703 for context.
>Fro
