echristo added a comment. In http://reviews.llvm.org/D20352#477203, @rnk wrote:
> In http://reviews.llvm.org/D20352#477084, @aaron.ballman wrote: > > > No, I'm not. I am worried about how this conflicts with another in-flight > > patch for supporting MS hotpatchable functions since it seems these two > > attributes do roughly the same thing. I'd like to understand how these two > > user-facing attributes will not be confusing to users, what should happen > > if both attributes wind up on a function, etc. I am hoping that we can wind > > up with only one attribute that covers both cases, if possible. > > > From a user perspective, I would definitely want to keep these attributes > separate. It's only possible to completely replace an MS hotpatchable > function, whereas XRay allows you to instrument function entry and exit with > low overhead. You can achieve the same effect as XRay with MS hotpatchable > prologues and a full trampoline with a stack frame, but probably not at the > same runtime cost. They really are suited for different tasks. Agreed. -eric http://reviews.llvm.org/D20352 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
