Hahnfeld added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D50845#1204340, @ABataev wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D50845#1204216, @Hahnfeld wrote: > > > Got that, I agree on the conservative approach: If we find a function to be > > called that wasn't checked (because it wasn't implicitly `declare target` > > on the host) the compiler can error out. That should be correct in all > > cases, shouldn't it? > > > > There's a trade-off here: > > > > - How many TUs pass full analysis and how many don't? (today's situation; > > we know that some headers don't work) > > - How many TUs pass when we only check called functions (and error if we > > call non-checked ones) and how many regress compared to today's situation? > > If the number of regressions is zero for all practical situations but we > > can compile some important cases, that should be a win. > > > I need to think about it. We need to estimate all pros and cons here. It > might work. I'll try to put together a protoype so that we can actually test. Repository: rC Clang https://reviews.llvm.org/D50845 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
