LevitatingLion added a comment. In D70366#1971137 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D70366#1971137>, @dexonsmith wrote:
> In D70366#1970758 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D70366#1970758>, @jdoerfert wrote: > > > In D70366#1970526 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D70366#1970526>, @dexonsmith > > wrote: > > > > > In D70366#1970299 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D70366#1970299>, > > > @LevitatingLion wrote: > > > > > > > Maybe we can add an additional string attribute when adding the > > > > noinline attribute to functions which are not marked noinline in the > > > > source code, something like "noinline-added-by-clang". I don't know if > > > > that's a legitimate use case for a string attribute, but it wouldn't be > > > > very invasive. What do you think? > > > > > > > > > Another option (not sure if it's better) would be to add a `noopt` LLVM > > > attribute that Clang adds for `-O0` instead of `noinline`. Two > > > possibilities would be to update the inliner to pay attention to that as > > > well (with special logic for `flatten`), or to change the always-inliner > > > to add `noinline` to anything marked `noopt`. > > > > > > `noopt == optnone`? Both `optnone` and `noinline` are set in O0, so we > > could just not place `noinline` (I think). > > > Sure, that could work. Or the noflatten idea is another possibility. It > would be good to hear what others think. `optnone` currently requires `noinline`. Can we simply remove this requirement or would that need more changes? If I understand the `noflatten` idea correctly, we would change the LLVM behaviour so that `alwaysinline_recursively` ignores `noinline` and stops inlining only when a callee has a dedicated "stop-marker" attribute (e.g. `noflatten`)? I think that would be counter-intuitive, `noinline` should prevent inlining. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D70366/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D70366 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
