nickdesaulniers added a comment. In D104475#2825711 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D104475#2825711>, @MaskRay wrote:
> So if we don't want to offer guarantee for IR/C/C++ attributes, we can > document that users may need to additionally specify > `__attribute__((noinline))` to suppress inlining. I don't generally like that approach: 1. it's not easy for developers to validate their call call chains to ensure that a caller with a restrictive function attribute doesn't have unrestricted callers inlined into the restricted caller. 2. that behavior opposes the principle of least surprise. 3. We don't have a statement attribute for call sites to say "please don't inline this call" which would be fine grain. noinline is a course-grain hammer; what if we want to inline a callee into most callers but not this one caller that has such a restricted function attribute? See also D91816 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D91816> where I took the conservative approach for `no_stack_protector` and simply chose not to perform such inline substitution on caller and callee function attribute mismatch. I find this behavior to be the least surprising, and the developer is provided with introspection as to why the compile did not perform such inlining via `-Rpass=inline` flag. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D104475/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D104475 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
