beanz added a comment. In D69356#1726336 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D69356#1726336>, @hubert.reinterpretcast wrote:
> Is there some documentation indicating these other use cases? If you have JIT'd code that needs to link against functions exposed in the process running the JIT you can't dead strip at link time otherwise those functions will be removed. > The current instances are consistent with plug-in support. The "no dead > strip" semantic is wrong and harmful for plug-in support on some platforms, > so the suggestion to imply "no dead strip" when plug-in support is requested > might not be advisable. Can you please explain how the "no dead strip" semantic is harmful for plug-in support, and how implying no dead strip for plugins is any different from the current implementation. This patch does not change behavior, it just makes the option name more confusing my linking disabling dead stripping to plugins. If what you say is correct that "no dead strip" is harmful to plugins on some platforms it seems like this rename was a step in the direction of more confusion. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D69356/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D69356 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
