teresajohnson wrote: > > I had that thought, but the current control is pretty much this, which > > means that adding a module flag would require some more invasive changes to > > how the pass functions because this level of config doesn't touch IR at > > all. I can try to add a function level attribute or similar for it and make > > the pass exit early if you think that's cleaner. > > This is a _much_ larger change that should not be done in isolation for this > one flag, and would need a fleshed out design and RFC. I do not think pass > configuration belongs in the program
Yeah, an attribute is better than a module flag. We have some other examples that have gone this route...can dig them up if requested. The other reason is compatibility with non-LTO builds. I.e. a non-lto build like: clang++ -c -fno-slp-vectorize *.cc clang++ *.o works the same wrt slp vectorization if you add -flto. I'm not 100% opposed to adding the flag, but it gets messy if we have to add all of them to lld and the lld driver in clang. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/201585 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
