he resolver functions if the visible list of declarations is different,
> but we treat that as an ODR violation.*
>
>
>
Rightio - thanks for all the context (:
>
> - Dave
>
>
>
>
> *From:* David Blaikie [mailto:dblai...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Monday, October 29, 2018
From: David Blaikie [mailto:dblai...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, October 29, 2018 11:41 AM
To: Keane, Erich
Cc: Eric Christopher ; cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
Subject: Re: r344957 - Give Multiversion-inline functions linkonce linkage
On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 11:30 AM Keane, Erich
mailto:erich.ke
Eric Christopher <
> echri...@gmail.com>
> *Cc:* cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
> *Subject:* Re: r344957 - Give Multiversion-inline functions linkonce
> linkage
>
>
>
> Does this match GCC's approach here?
>
> (I ask this sort of as throwaway/conversation starter -
, 2018 11:25 AM
To: Keane, Erich ; Eric Christopher
Cc: cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
Subject: Re: r344957 - Give Multiversion-inline functions linkonce linkage
Does this match GCC's approach here?
(I ask this sort of as throwaway/conversation starter - because the
linkage/behavior a
Does this match GCC's approach here?
(I ask this sort of as throwaway/conversation starter - because the
linkage/behavior around multiversion functions and their inlining is full
of sharp corners/risks of code moving out of the areas appropriately
restricted based on the cpu features)
On Mon, Oct
