tejohnson marked an inline comment as done. tejohnson added a comment. In D75655#2237474 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D75655#2237474>, @pcc wrote:
> I think that the part of the description beginning "This can be used when..." > is somewhat misleading since you could pretty much say the same thing about > specifying `-fvisibility=hidden -fwhole-program-vtables` at compile time. > > I think it would be better to focus on the specific capability that > `--lto-visibility-hidden` gives you over just compiling with > `-fvisibility=hidden`. Let's keep @evgeny777 's use case out of this because > I still have concerns about it being dangerous. Can you simply say: > > "This flag can be used to defer specifying whether classes have hidden LTO > visibility until link time." > > Then, in order to try to forbid inappropriate use of the symbols, you could > add: > > "Due to an implementation limitation, symbols associated with classes with > hidden LTO visibility may still be exported from the binary when using this > flag. It is unsafe to refer to these symbols, and their visibility may be > relaxed to hidden in a future compiler release." Added these, but added in my proposed wording about why you would want to defer (to allow bitcode sharing). ================ Comment at: clang/docs/LTOVisibility.rst:39 +During the LTO link, all classes with public LTO visibility will be refined +to hidden LTO visibility when the ``-lto-whole-program-visibility`` lld linker +option is applied (``-plugin-opt=whole-program-visibility`` for gold). This ---------------- MaskRay wrote: > This is now > > ``--lto-whole-program-visibility`` > > (I am currently preparing some lld/ELF release notes for 11.0.0...) Fixed here and in summary 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
