hoy added a comment. In D93656#2466689 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D93656#2466689>, @tmsriram wrote:
> https://reviews.llvm.org/D73307#1932131 rnk@ mentioned this : "At a higher > level, should this just be an IR pass that clang adds into the pipeline when > the flag is set? It should be safe to rename internal functions and give > private functions internal linkage. It would be less invasive to clang and > have better separation of concerns. As written, this is based on the source > filename on the module, which is accessible from IR. The only reason I can > think of against this is that the debug info might refer to the function > linkage name, but maybe that is calculated later during codegen." > > I just wanted to mention it here that this was anticipated and was missed in > the original patch, my bad as I didnt think about DebugInfo change. However, > I think it is pretty straightforward to change the linkage name so I would > still keep the pass approach. Thanks for the information. Yeah it's pretty straightforward hook it up with debug info as an IR pass. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D93656/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D93656 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
