EricWF added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D24599#543849, @mclow.lists wrote:
> Any reason we shouldn't just revert r280944, wait for the LLVM bug to be > fixed, and then re-apply it? I would like to put some time between fixing the Clang bug and re-introducing the reproducer into libc++. Like it would be nice if 3.9 + libc++ still self hosted. I already reverted r280944 and I think we should put it back eventually, but maybe not right after it's fixed. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D24599#543917, @hiraditya wrote: > @EricWF, since inline is only a hint, the compiler would not inline in many > cases, it might give the inliner a little bit of push to inline. When we were > working on this patch, adding inline wasn't enough and hence we added the > _LIBCPP_INLINE_VISIBILITY flag. The compiler crash seems to be in the > Verifier which does not allow aliases to available_externally functions. I'm aware. As I mentioned in the summary Clang only listens to `inline` at -O2 or greater. However without `inline` it won't even get inlined then. This is more of a bandage than your complete solution. https://reviews.llvm.org/D24599 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
