AlexVlx added a comment. @yaxunl interesting point - are you worried about cases where due to missing inlining / const prop an indirect call site that can be replaced with a direct one would remain indirect? I think the problem in that case would actually be different, in that possibly reachable functions would not be identified as such and would be erroneously removed. I'm not sure there's any case where we'd fail to remove a meant to be unreachable function. We can definitely go with the `__clang_unsupported` approach, but I think I'd prefer these to be compile time errors rather than remarks + runtime `printf`, not in the least because `printf` adds some overhead. A way to ensure we don't "miss a spot" might be to check after removal for any remaining unsupported builtins, instead of doing it during reachability computation (this is coupled with the special naming from the prior post).
Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D155850/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D155850 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
