hoy added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/test/CodeGen/unique-internal-linkage-names-dwarf.c:34-39
+static int go(a) int a;
+{
+ return glob + a;
+}
+
+
----------------
dblaikie wrote:
> hoy wrote:
> > dblaikie wrote:
> > > hoy wrote:
> > > > dblaikie wrote:
> > > > > Does this need to be down here? Or would the code be a well exercised
> > > > > if it was up next to the go declaration above?
> > > > Yes, it needs to be here. Otherwise it will just like the function
> > > > `bar` above that doesn't get a uniquefied name. I think moving the
> > > > definition up to right after the declaration hides the declaration.
> > > Not sure I follow - do you mean that if the go declaration and go
> > > definition were next to each other, this test would (mechanically
> > > speaking) not validate what the patch? Or that it would be less legible,
> > > but still mechanically correct?
> > >
> > > I think it would be (assuming it's still mechanically correct) more
> > > legible to put the declaration next to the definition - the comment
> > > describes why the declaration is significant/why the definition is weird,
> > > and seeing all that together would be clearer to me than spreading it
> > > out/having to look further away to see what's going on.
> > When the `go` declaration and `go` definition were next to each other, the
> > go function won't get a uniqufied name at all. The declaration will be
> > overwritten by the definition. Only when the declaration is seen by others,
> > such the callsite in `baz`, the declaration makes a difference by having
> > the callsite use a uniqufied name.
> >
> >
> Ah! Interesting, good to know.
>
> Is that worth supporting, I wonder? I guess it falls out for free/without
> significant additional complexity. I worry about the subtlety of the
> additional declaration changing the behavior here... might be a bit
> surprising/subtle. But maybe no nice way to avoid it either.
It would be ideal if user never writes code like that. Unfortunately it exists
with legacy code (such as mysql). I think it's worth supporting it from AutoFDO
point of view to avoid a silent mismatch between debug linkage name and real
linkage name.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D98799/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D98799
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
