kuhar added a comment. In D119061#3312571 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D119061#3312571>, @xbolva00 wrote:
>>> Do you plan to also add inline and flatten? > > You mean always_inline? Yes, after noinline. The flatten call site attribute > - theoretically why not, but it needs to be reworked in LLVM (like > always_inline_recursively) before any patch like this one. SGTM. >>> When I worked on my implementation, I remember that I also ran into the >>> issue of conflicting attributes. I defaulted to whatever the inliner >>> behavior was at the time, but a few folks pointed out to me that this can >>> be very confusing. I think this needs thorough documentation / testing. > > Yes, as we mentioned it already, for example always_inline on decl, and > noinline on callsite. We should diagnose these cases and always prefer call > site attribute. (and as I said, some fixes for inliner are needed). It would be good to check with a language expert if this can break some code. I'm thinking of situations when someone relies on a function being emitted (or not) and ending up with linking issues. I'm not an expert here, but this is a past concern I vaguely remember. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D119061/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D119061 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
