tejohnson marked 3 inline comments as done. tejohnson added a subscriber: evgeny777. tejohnson added inline comments.
================ Comment at: clang/docs/LTOVisibility.rst:40 +to hidden LTO visibility when the ``-lto-whole-program-visibility`` lld linker +option is applied (``-plugin-opt=whole_program_visibility`` for gold). This +can be used when it is known that the LTO link has whole program visibility, ---------------- pcc wrote: > Isn't it spelled `whole-program-visibility`? good catch, yes ================ Comment at: clang/docs/LTOVisibility.rst:45 +build system, and the binary will not dlopen any libraries deriving from the +binary’s classes. This is useful in situations where it is not safe to specify +``-fvisibility=hidden`` at compile time. ---------------- pcc wrote: > I thought that the motivation was avoiding duplicate work in the case where > you need varying LTO visibility? Otherwise you could just build with and > without `-fvisibility=hidden` and it would be the same from an LTO visibility > perspective. Yeah I started to write that out but it seemed too verbose (essentially we can't share a single bitcode object anymore without this, because it isn't safe for all dependent links, which to me is included in "situations where it is not safe to specify -fvisibility=hidden"). Also, on D71913, @evgeny777 mentioned he had a case were the symbol visibility constraints didn't allow for -fvisibility=hidden, but where LTO visibility for vtables can be hidden. I could add something more verbose about my case if you prefer. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D75655/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D75655 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
