================ @@ -1662,12 +1662,13 @@ def : Flag<["-"], "shared-libasan">, Alias<shared_libsan>; def : Flag<["-"], "static-libasan">, Alias<static_libsan>; def fasm : Flag<["-"], "fasm">, Group<f_Group>; -defm assume_unique_vtables : BoolFOption<"assume-unique-vtables", - CodeGenOpts<"AssumeUniqueVTables">, DefaultTrue, - PosFlag<SetTrue>, - NegFlag<SetFalse, [], [ClangOption, CC1Option], - "Disable optimizations based on vtable pointer identity">, - BothFlags<[], [ClangOption, CLOption]>>; +def fassume_unique_vtables : Flag<["-"], "fassume-unique-vtables">, + Group<f_Group>, Visibility<[ClangOption, CC1Option, CLOption]>, + HelpText<"Assume each polymorphic class has a single vtable with a unique " + "address, enabling optimizations based on vtable pointer identity">; +def fno_assume_unique_vtables : Flag<["-"], "fno-assume-unique-vtables">, + Group<f_Group>, Visibility<[ClangOption, CC1Option, CLOption]>, + HelpText<"Disable optimizations based on vtable pointer identity">; ---------------- ojhunt wrote:
I was assuming `-fassume-unique-vtables` would maintain it's current behavior, as would `-fnoassume-unique-vtables`, but it would also allow people/us to pass `-fassume-unique-vtables=strong-linkage` rather than having another case where there is a mode that can only used via changes to the compiler. If you don't think this is strong enough rationale I'm ok with that as well, this was just my reasoning for why I thought the change was reasonable. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/205929 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
