iains added a comment. In D118352#3363909 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D118352#3363909>, @urnathan wrote:
> In D118352#3362694 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D118352#3362694>, @ChuanqiXu > wrote: > >> In D118352#3359626 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D118352#3359626>, @urnathan >> wrote: >> >>> > > > >>> Correct, it is not called as the global initializer pieces are not yet >>> implemented. Let's not hold up this patch for that nor remove piece that >>> will become necessary at that point. >> >> It's odd to see unused functions. I just worry about that other people might >> delete these functions as cleaning up (maybe there wouldn't be). > > That's a risk I'm ok with. I agree - I think we already a fair amount of infrastructure in the compiler to handle module initialisers, ahead of a full implementation - so I do not see a reason for waiting longer to apply this because we cannot yet exercise it full. >> Although the general declarations in partitions wouldn't be mangled >> specially, I think it would be better to add test case to show that. > > good idea, added. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D118352/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D118352 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
