tmsriram added a comment. In D93747#2488387 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D93747#2488387>, @dblaikie wrote:
> Seems alright to me - I think we've hashed out the deeper issues (missing > opportunity for C functions which could/should be addressed by moving the > implementation to the frontend, where those C functions can be mangled and > then use linkageName to give them the same AutoFDO opportunities as C++ > functions) here and elsewhere - but for what it is, the patch makes sense. > I'd probably say drop the flag - " check if rawLinkageName is set and only > set it when it is not null. " was implemented and seems that addressed the > debug info issue without an awkward tradeoff between AutoFDO fidelity and > debugging fidelity, so there doesn't seem to be a need to be able to > configure this. Here is a suggestion for a plan forward. Let's get these patches along with D94154 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D94154> in. No correctness issues but a missed opportunity. I will work with @rnk and @dblaikie and send out a patch where I move the uniqueification to clang? That patch will also do linkage name for C functions with mangled name when uniqueification is needed. Does that sound reasonable? As for timeline, I can do this in two weeks. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D93747/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D93747 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
