pcc added inline comments.
================ Comment at: clang/lib/CodeGen/BackendUtil.cpp:694 + else + PerModulePasses.add( + createBitcodeWriterPass(*OS, CodeGenOpts.EmitLLVMUseLists)); ---------------- tejohnson wrote: > Can we transform other callers of createBitcodeWriterPass with > EmitSummaryIndex = true or EmitModuleHash = true to instead call > createWriteThinLTOBitcodePass as you did here, and then remove those > parameters from createBitcodeWriterPass? http://llvm-cs.pcc.me.uk/lib/Bitcode/Writer/BitcodeWriterPass.cpp/rcreateBitcodeWriterPass The only other caller like that is in opt. I think that if we change the "under the hood" parts of opt we should change it to not use a pass at all (c.f. our earlier discussion on D27324), then remove those parameters. ================ Comment at: clang/test/CodeGenCXX/type-metadata-thinlto.cpp:2 +// RUN: %clang_cc1 -flto=thin -triple x86_64-unknown-linux -fvisibility hidden -emit-llvm-bc -o %t %s +// RUN: llvm-modextract -o - -n 1 %t | llvm-dis | FileCheck %s + ---------------- mehdi_amini wrote: > tejohnson wrote: > > Is it the case that now we will always split the module with this change? > > Should that only be done under CFI options? > Devirtualization may happen whenever you have a hidden virtual table IIUC, > independently of CFI. To be more precise: we normally add type metadata in LTO mode when the class has hidden visibility. See: http://clang.llvm.org/docs/LTOVisibility.html That doesn't necessarily imply devirtualization, which is controlled by the flag `-fwhole-program-vtables`. https://reviews.llvm.org/D28843 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
