elizabethandrews wrote: > I requested some minor changes. > > Can we document the `.ifunc` symbols as a deprecated feature? With this > change, they will never be referenced except by code compiled by older > compiler versions. Maybe plan to deprecate them a year from now?
How/where do I document this? > It looks like there is a related issue in which multiple ifunc symbols are > emitted for the `cpu_dispatch` attribute. See > https://godbolt.org/z/71vr8ceza. The relevant symbols emitted are listed > below. Note that both `_Z12cpu_specificv` and `_Z12cpu_specificv.ifunc` are > "i" symbols with the same address. The caller in this case calls the `.ifunc` > symbol (just as for `target_clones` prior to this change). It would be nice > if we can fix this issue at the same time and likewise deprecate the `.ifunc` > symbol for `cpu_dispatch`/`cpu_specific`. > > ``` > 00000000000024c0 i _Z12cpu_specificv > 0000000000002480 T _Z12cpu_specificv.A > 0000000000002490 T _Z12cpu_specificv.M > 00000000000024c0 i _Z12cpu_specificv.ifunc > 00000000000024c0 W _Z12cpu_specificv.resolver > ``` > > I think the only time a symbol with a `.ifunc` suffix is actually needed is > when the `target` attribute is used in an overloading context (since in that > situation, the `target(default)` definition gets the non-suffixed name. The symbols correspond to the ifunc and it's alias. Mangling rules seem to vary between different MV attributes. For example - for `target` attribute, the default versions does not include a `.default` suffix. I do not know what the mangling requirements for `cpu_dispatch` is off the top of my head. I do not think we should change it to match `target_clones` attribute without confirming this is the correct behavior for this attribute. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/71706 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
