djtodoro abandoned this revision. djtodoro added a comment. In D108618#2968626 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D108618#2968626>, @rjmccall wrote:
> Does LLVM model `noinline` as a call-site attribute in the way that would be > necessary to get that effect? Also, are you actually having a problem here, > or is this just something you noticed in the code? It is being ignored completely, anyway :/ I am not having a problem, actually. It has been noticed accidentally when looking at some other attribute, but then I've started playing with some Debug Info cases (since that is the area I mostly work) by dancing around with some cross CU referencing during when using LTO -- all in all, this isn't necessary. > I'm not sure we can warn about putting the attribute on a declaration; it's > presumably still picked up by later definitions. There's probably a warning > if they conflict, as they would if the first declaration was in a header > included in both places, which is best practice. Oh yes... It is very hard to warn during compilation since we don't have the definition -- even though we have conflicts in `test-1.c` and `test-2.c`. @rjmccall Thanks for your comments anyway :) Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D108618/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D108618 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
