Wouldn't it be better to keep compatibility with GCC and make __gcov_flush have default visibility?
- Marco. Il 26/06/2018 00:21, Xinliang David Li ha scritto: > I don't have an objection having another interface which is just a > simple wrapper to __gcov_flush but with default visibility. Also > clearly document its usage and behavior. > > David > > On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 10:12 AM, Chih-Hung Hsieh via Phabricator via > llvm-commits <llvm-comm...@lists.llvm.org > <mailto:llvm-comm...@lists.llvm.org>> wrote: > > chh added a comment. > > In https://reviews.llvm.org/D45454#1142197 > <https://reviews.llvm.org/D45454#1142197>, @marco-c wrote: > > > In https://reviews.llvm.org/D45454#1070884 > <https://reviews.llvm.org/D45454#1070884>, @belleyb wrote: > > > > > @chh I had a chance to try out your proposed changes. It's not > causing us any trouble. In fact, `__gcov_flush()` is not even used > at all (at least in LLVM 5.0.1).. I can recompile llvm, > compiler_rt and clang and re-run all the tests with `__gcov_flush` > commented out! No problem. > > > > > > I would suggest adding a bit more documentation to > `__gcov_flush()`, thus describing what those "special cases" are... > > > > > > __gcov_flush is only used if you actually call it (it's needed > for example if you want to profile only part of your program). > > > > In GCC, __gcov_flush is not hidden, so perhaps we should do the > same to keep the same behavior? I've also submitted > https://reviews.llvm.org/D48538 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D48538>, > which is making __gcov_flush flush counters for all shared > libraries (like GCC does, with the same caveat: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83879 > <https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83879>). > > > I have no problem keeping these functions compatible with GCC. > My earlier proposal and David's comment in the mailing list seemed > to be lost and not showing here. > So, let me summarize the case here. This change should make > `__gcov_flush` not hidden as before in GCC, > but earlier change made it hidden as well as other `llvm_gov_*` > functions. > Could we have both `__gov_flush` and `llvm_gov_flush` functions, > one unhidden and one hidden? > > > https://reviews.llvm.org/D45454 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D45454> > > > > _______________________________________________ > llvm-commits mailing list > llvm-comm...@lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-comm...@lists.llvm.org> > http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-commits > <http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-commits> > >
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
