probinson added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/CodeGen/CodeGenModule.cpp:910-912
// OptimizeNone wins over OptimizeForSize and MinSize.
F->removeFnAttr(llvm::Attribute::OptimizeForSize);
F->removeFnAttr(llvm::Attribute::MinSize);
----------------
mehdi_amini wrote:
> chandlerc wrote:
> > Is this still at all correct? Why? it seems pretty confusing especially in
> > conjunction with the code below.
> >
> >
> > I think this may force you to either:
> > a) stop early-marking of -Os and -Oz flags with these attributes (early:
> > prior to calling this routine) and handling all of the -O flag synthesized
> > attributes here, or
> > b) set optnone for -O0 wher ewe set optsize for -Os and friends, and then
> > remove it where necessary here.
> >
> > I don't have any strong opinion about a vs. b.
> I believe it is still correct: during Os/Oz we reach this point and figure
> that there is `__attribute__((optnone))` in the *source* (not `-O0`), we
> remove the attributes, nothing changes. Did I miss something?
>
Hmmm the Os/Oz attributes are added in CGCall.cpp, and are guarded with a check
on the presence of the Optnone source attribute, so if the Optnone source
attribute is present we should never see these. And Os/Oz set
OptimizationLevel to 2, which is not zero, so we won't come through here for
ShouldAddOptNone reasons either.
Therefore these 'remove' calls should be no-ops and could be removed. (For
paranoia you could turn them into asserts, and do some experimenting to see
whether I'm confused about how this all fits together.)
https://reviews.llvm.org/D28404
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
