eandrews added a comment. In D158666#4611481 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D158666#4611481>, @erichkeane wrote:
> I think the .ifunc spelling was an oversight on my part when I implemented > this, I didn't spend enough time investigating GCC's behavior when > implementing this feature. I think the alias is the right way about it, but > I think the .ifunc should be the alias (at least as far as I can think it > through right now). I think that works better because it supports a case > where the 'definition' of the target-clones function is generated with GCC, > but the 'caller' (also with target clones) comes from clang. I THINK that > makes more sense? But perhaps try to chart out the behavior of the GCC/Clang > "Knows about TC"/"Doesn't know about TC" in each situation to see which are > troublesome? > > Additionally, this needs a release note. Thanks for taking a look! Can you explain why we need an alias? As in, if we just remove the .ifunc suffix in the 'ifunc' function here, it should work without an alias I think. I have to re-check but IIRC this is what GCC does CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D158666/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D158666 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
