search for: available_externally_odr

...(2) is under the "ODR" rule, and I think we've been applying the same logic to (3). Unless, are you saying ODR isn't enough? Assuming you need this new definition (but under ODR, the semantics are correct), I would rather split the linkage than change it. E.g., use a name like available_externally_odr for (2) and (3).

Hi all, This is something that came up in the "RFC: Add guard intrinsics to LLVM" thread; and while I'm not exactly blocked on this, figuring out a path forward here will be helpful in deciding if we can use the available_externally linkage type to expression certain semantic properties guard intrinsics will have. Let's start with an example that shows that we have a problem

...optimized definitions for a function and picks one as the definitive version all non-inlined calls link to, we have this problem. > Assuming you need this new definition (but under ODR, the semantics > are correct), I would rather split the linkage than change it. E.g., > use a name like available_externally_odr for (2) and (3). If what I said above is correct (i.e. ODR == OD across everything you're linking into your final executable) then splitting the linkage / adding a new one is probably the best alternative. -- Sanjoy