DiggerLin added inline comments.
================ Comment at: clang/lib/CodeGen/BackendUtil.cpp:520 Options.DataSections = CodeGenOpts.DataSections; - Options.IgnoreXCOFFVisibility = CodeGenOpts.IgnoreXCOFFVisibility; Options.UniqueSectionNames = CodeGenOpts.UniqueSectionNames; ---------------- jasonliu wrote: > DiggerLin wrote: > > DiggerLin wrote: > > > jasonliu wrote: > > > > DiggerLin wrote: > > > > > jasonliu wrote: > > > > > > DiggerLin wrote: > > > > > > > jasonliu wrote: > > > > > > > > Instead of just removing this line, should this get replaced > > > > > > > > with the new LangOpts option? > > > > > > > I do not think we need a CodeGenOp of ignore-xcoff-visibility in > > > > > > > clang, we only need the LangOpt of the ignore-xcoff-visilbity to > > > > > > > control whether we will generate the visibility in the IR, when > > > > > > > the LangOpt of ignore-xcoff-visibility do not generate the > > > > > > > visibility attribute of GV in the IR. it do not need CodeGenOp of > > > > > > > ignore-xcoff-visibility any more for the clang . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we have still CodeGen ignore-xcoff-visibility op in llc. > > > > > > We removed the visibility from IR level with this patch. But there > > > > > > is also visibility settings coming from CodeGen part of clang, > > > > > > which needs to get ignore when we are doing the code gen in llc. So > > > > > > I think you still need to set the options correct for llc. > > > > > yes we have the set the options correct for llc in the code. > > > > > > > > > > in the source file llvm/lib/CodeGen/CommandFlags.cpp, we have (in the > > > > > patch https://reviews.llvm.org/D87451 add new option > > > > > -mignore-xcoff-visibility) , the function > > > > > TargetOptions codegen::InitTargetOptionsFromCodeGenFlags() { > > > > > .... > > > > > Options.IgnoreXCOFFVisibility = getIgnoreXCOFFVisibility(); > > > > > ...} > > > > > > > > > What I'm saying is... > > > > I think we need a line like this: > > > > `Options.IgnoreXCOFFVisibility = LangOpts.IgnoreXCOFFVisibility;` > > > > so that when you invoke clang, backend would get the correct setting as > > > > well. > > > I do not think so, from the clang FE, we do not generated the visibility > > > in the IR. so there is no need these line. > > or we can say that because we do not set the hidden visibility into the > > GlobalValue , so we do not need the > > Options.IgnoreXCOFFVisibility = LangOpts.IgnoreXCOFFVisibility; > I think I mentioned this before, we could have extra visibility settings in > clang/lib/CodeGen that's not depending on the existing visibility setting in > the IR. (You could search for `setVisibility` there.) That was the reason we > did it in llc first. I will add Options.IgnoreXCOFFVisibility = LangOpts.IgnoreXCOFFVisibility; here. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D89986/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D89986 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
