modimo added a comment. In D152741#4418831 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D152741#4418831>, @tejohnson wrote:
> I think I understand the motivation, but not sure I agree this is the right > approach - can you simply not pass -flto-unit and -fwhole-program-vtables for > these files? For our third-party libraries, they're pre-built into native files by GCC so that's unfortunately not an option. > Also, isn't this hiding possibly necessary info from WPD that might be needed > for correct class hierarchy analysis affecting other IR modules? I.e. in the > type-metadata-skip-vtable-filepaths.cpp test, what if A was derived from a > struct B, which was also defined/used in another module without this skipping > option. We would lose information about the override of f in A, and possibly > do an incorrect devirtualization elsewhere. It seems like a dangerous option > to provide. > > It might be better to provide an option that can somehow mark vtables in a > given module as unsafe for devirt, and propagate that info to WPD. That would nicely side-step mismatched flags. `Public` `vcall_visibility` describes this case but with `--lto-whole-program-visibility` there's no a distinction between `Public` because of deferred vs. `Public` because the type is known unsafe. Thoughts on an `unsafe` `vcall_visibility` to capture the latter notion? Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D152741/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D152741 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
