fhahn added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D24644#792262, @mehdi_amini wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D24644#792168, @fhahn wrote: > > > I'd like to fix PR22999 and was wondering if you think adding a > > function-section attribute to the IR would be a viable solution? > > > > When doing LTO, we could add the same function-section to each function in > > a module in the IRLinker. @mehdi_amini did you think something like that > > when suggesting using attributes? > > > Not sure how this would work? How do you codegen half of the functions with > function-section but not all? How is the backend supposed to behave if it > starts with a function that isn't decorated with this attribute, then move to > one that is, and finally proceed with one that isn't? hm yes I guess we would have to group the functions by their function-section attribute, which isn't such a good idea probably. @echristo you mentioned that the compiler maybe could determine if we should use function-sections during codegen, but it does not seem possible to determine the size of the code section before emitting all functions, at which point it is already too late. Maybe I am missing something? Repository: rL LLVM https://reviews.llvm.org/D24644 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
