arda marked an inline comment as done.
arda added inline comments.
================
Comment at: llvm/lib/Bitcode/Writer/EmbedBitcodePass.cpp:26
+
+PreservedAnalyses EmbedBitcodePass::run(Module &M, ModuleAnalysisManager &AM) {
+ if (M.getGlobalVariable("llvm.embedded.module", true))
----------------
arda wrote:
> sfertile wrote:
> > From the discourse discussion:
> > 1) it was suggested that we remove the existing -fembed-bitcode
> > functionality as Apple has stop supporting it.
> > 2) mentioned that MLGO uses the option to embed the bitcode at various
> > points in the pipeline depending on if its using LTO our not.
> >
> > Do we want the pass to be a bit more generic and be able to specify the
> > global to use for embedding, and the section name to use as arguments? That
> > way MLGO can keep using the section name it uses now . It also helps
> > consuming tools to disambiguate between bitcode embedded for lto purpose
> > from bitcode embedded for other purposes.
> I should have an answer in a couple of days. I will keep you updated.
We have talked to folks at MLGO and reached a decision that their use case is
sufficiently different from ours that it should be handled separately. More
detailed discussion here:
[[ https://discourse.llvm.org/t/rfc-ffat-lto-objects-support/63977/15?u=arda |
[RFC] -ffat-lto-objects support on Discours ]]
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D131618/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D131618
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
