=?utf-8?q?Balázs_Kéri?= <[email protected]> Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <llvm.org/llvm/llvm-project/pull/[email protected]>
necto wrote: I'm not against this change, but I wonder if you considered alternatives: - If you are not afraid of loosing the case of weak+strong definition, a simpler approach could be to ignore the duplicates (i.e., in case of a duplicate, treat the function as opaque) regardless of weak/strong and not emit an error, but maybe a warning or a remark. - If you do want to keep the case of weak + strong definition, have you considered introducing an extra field to defmap, or generate an extra file with simple facts about the symbols? In addition to "weak/strong" (this changeset) they could also, in the future, be annotated as `[[noreturn]]`, have their size (for the inline decisions), `pure`, etc. If we use an extensible format, we could gradually expand the set of properties available to CTU before it decides (or even able) to load the external TU. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/204188 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
