> On Aug 19, 2015, at 2:15 PM, Richard Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> rsmith added a subscriber: rsmith.
>
> ================
> Comment at: include/clang/Frontend/CodeGenOptions.def:164-165
> @@ -163,1 +163,4 @@
>
> +CODEGENOPT(DebugTypeExtRefs, 1, 0) ///< Whether or not debug info should
> contain
> + ///< external references to a PCH or
> module.
> +
> ----------------
> Does this flag end up in the module hash? It presumably should do so.
>
> ================
> Comment at: lib/Driver/Tools.cpp:3708
> @@ +3707,3 @@
> + CmdArgs.push_back("-dwarf-ext-refs");
> + CmdArgs.push_back("-fmodule-format=obj");
> + }
> ----------------
> What happens if we get a module cache hash collision between module files
> with different formats? This didn't really matter when the choice was
> essentially made per-platform, but if it's affected by a user-facing -g flag,
> we should make sure this works reliably. (You can probably test this by using
> `-disable-module-hash` and then using the same module with two different
> module formats specified.)
Maybe this is missing the point, but a hash collision between module files with
different formats should be highly unlikely because we add the module format
into the hash.
llvm::hash_code Hash =
llvm::hash_combine(DirName.lower(), FileName.lower(),
HSOpts->ModuleFormat);
Or do you mean a collision in spite of this?
-- adrian
>
>
> Repository:
> rL LLVM
>
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__reviews.llvm.org_D11958&d=BQIFaQ&c=eEvniauFctOgLOKGJOplqw&r=cTx6f1tAfqPeajYunFWp7_8ot79RnHyNteqzig4fXmA&m=Hif7tUdT99UHfmvRzCmBZwy6dNprsPRxUGBxEk-_7N8&s=49H83hq9XpGzkDxo54JS1C3LveyHd66KK0SoZFrFhHU&e=
>
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
