MaskRay added a comment. In D146777#4491842 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D146777#4491842>, @paulkirth wrote:
> Rebase and try to accomodate Unified LTO changes. > > Based on the Unified LTO patches, I think this is the correct handling for > FatLTO, but I'd like to get a second opinion before landing this. > > CC: @ormris Would you mind testing the behavior when both `-funified-lto -ffat-lto-objects` are specified and mentioning it in the summary? Some concrete instructions for end users will be very useful. See https://reviews.llvm.org/D123804#4491107 for what I suggested for -funified-lto. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D146777/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D146777 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
