pcc added a comment. In D149215#4303197 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D149215#4303197>, @tejohnson wrote:
> In D149215#4303149 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D149215#4303149>, @pcc wrote: > >>> Adds an LTO option >> >> Usual question: does it need to be an option? Could the allocator expose a >> symbol such as `__malloc_hot_cold` that the linker could check for in the >> symbol table? > > I thought about doing something like that, but the disadvantage is that it > requires support in the linkers (presumably at least both lld and the gold > plugin), instead of being centralized in LTO itself. That being said, I do > see existing lld code that currently looks for certain special __* symbols, > so maybe this would be ok. I agree it would be nice to have something > automatic, at least longer term. However, I think we need the internal option > anyway, for testing (especially via opt for simulating regular LTO). What do > you think of my adding a TODO to investigate the approach you are suggesting > here? That's fine. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D149215/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D149215 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
