dblaikie added a comment. In D141310#4062776 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D141310#4062776>, @adriandole wrote:
> @dblaikie, we would use this warning in Chrome OS. Ah, good to know! > We use `icf=all` and have encountered bugs caused by function pointer > comparisons. & the savings are worth it compared to icf=safe? (given the limitations/bugs/investment in warnings like this, etc) I guess > It's not that noisy compiling clang (eight hits). Good to know - I'm surprised it's that low. Is there some idiom we can use/document/recommend for people to use when the warning is a false positive? (when the user is confident the functions won't be folded together) > Working on testing it for Chrome OS. ah, cool - be good to know what that looks like/what kind of changes you end up needing to make to the codebase to get it building cleanly/how much of the work involves fixing real bugs compared to suppressing/satisfying the compiler. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D141310/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D141310 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
