thakis added a comment. In D57915#1389722 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D57915#1389722>, @TomTan wrote:
> In D57915#1389560 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D57915#1389560>, @lebedev.ri > wrote: > > > In D57915#1389549 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D57915#1389549>, @TomTan wrote: > > > > > Added the tests back. Clang IR should not lower these to bswap calls > > > because they are global library functions. It might be slower to make the > > > call to library function than bswap, but this is the same for other > > > architectures supported by Windows. And just redefine global library > > > function triggers link error in some scenarios. > > > > > > I think there is some deeper reasoning is being omitted here. > > //Why// does the fact that those are "global library functions" bans clang > > from lowering them into IR? > > (and thus, "prevents" LLVM form doing optimizations) > > > The current issue could be caused by the implementation of comdat selection > in LLD as below which provides more strict conflict check than MSVC link does. lld isn't supposed to be more strict than link.exe. lld used to not implement the comdat selection field until recently, so lld got more strict – but it should've gotten only as strict as link.exe, not moreso. Do you have an example where lld is more strict than link.exe? Repository: rL LLVM CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D57915/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D57915 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
