JonChesterfield added a comment. In D89994#2348656 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D89994#2348656>, @ABataev wrote:
> In D89994#2348655 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D89994#2348655>, @JonChesterfield > wrote: > >> The nvptx back end accepts common + zero + shared, but not common + undef + >> shared. I think weak_odr is conceptually right here, but given the warning >> that nvlink doesn't support weak symbols, internal also seems fine. Can >> someone see an advantage to weak over internal? It could be arch specific at >> the risk of a lot of test duplication. > > IIRC, it supports weak symbols, but does not support weak symbols of > different sizes. That seems a reasonable restriction. Linkers sometimes pick the first weak symbol they see. Comdat might mean pick the biggest one, but that's probably not a good thing to rely on. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D89994/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D89994 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
