dblaikie added a comment. >>> It's not that noisy compiling clang (eight hits). >> >> Good to know - I'm surprised it's that low. >> >> Is there some idiom we can use/document/recommend for people to use when the >> warning is a false positive? (when the user is confident the functions won't >> be folded together) > > How would the user know the warning is a false positive in the first place?
It's certainly no guarantee (a pathalogical compiler could busybox every function into one function, regardless of how different tnhose functions are) - but likely if the functions have different observable behavior they won't be folded (eg: if they write to different global variables, do different arithmetic, etc). It wouldn't surprise me if people were willing to thread that needle. If @adriandole's intent is to not thread that needle, and actually remove all function pointer comparisons from a codebase using icf=all, I'd be curious to hear experience of that migration on a large codebase, yeah. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D141310/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D141310 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
