Displaying 5 results from an estimated 5 matches for "func_b".
Did you mean:
func_a
2013 Feb 20
4
[LLVMdev] [RFC] NoBuiltin Attribute
On 2/19/2013 11:11 PM, Chris Lattner wrote:
>
> I still really have no idea what problem you think you are solving.
Dealing with different attributes on different functions.
--- a.c ---
void func_a() {
printf(...);
}
--- b.c ---
void func_b() {
printf(...);
func_a();
}
a.c is compiled with no-builtin-printf, b.c has no such options.
The prototype approach (no-builtin on the prototype of printf) won't
work in case like this, when the no-builtin attributes are not identical
across all the compilation units.
Putting this a...
2013 Feb 20
0
[LLVMdev] [RFC] NoBuiltin Attribute
...1:11 PM, Chris Lattner wrote:
>>
>>
>> I still really have no idea what problem you think you are solving.
>
>
> Dealing with different attributes on different functions.
>
> --- a.c ---
> void func_a() {
> printf(...);
> }
>
> --- b.c ---
> void func_b() {
> printf(...);
> func_a();
> }
>
> a.c is compiled with no-builtin-printf, b.c has no such options.
>
> The prototype approach (no-builtin on the prototype of printf) won't work
in case like this, when the no-builtin attributes are not identical across
all the compi...
2013 Feb 20
1
[LLVMdev] [RFC] NoBuiltin Attribute
...ated: :)
On Feb 20, 2013, at 8:19 AM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Dealing with different attributes on different functions.
> >
> > --- a.c ---
> > void func_a() {
> > printf(...);
> > }
> >
> > --- b.c ---
> > void func_b() {
> > printf(...);
> > func_a();
> > }
> >
> > a.c is compiled with no-builtin-printf, b.c has no such options.
> >
> > The prototype approach (no-builtin on the prototype of printf) won't work in case like this, when the no-builtin attributes are...
2013 Feb 20
0
[LLVMdev] [RFC] NoBuiltin Attribute
On Feb 19, 2013, at 2:45 PM, Krzysztof Parzyszek <kparzysz at codeaurora.org> wrote:
> On 2/19/2013 1:50 PM, Chris Lattner wrote:
>>
>> How is this not handled by handling fno-builtin by putting an attribute on the code being compiled?
>
> Regardless of which solution you consider, it is always "putting an attribute on the code being compiled", the question
2013 Feb 19
2
[LLVMdev] [RFC] NoBuiltin Attribute
On 2/19/2013 1:50 PM, Chris Lattner wrote:
>
> How is this not handled by handling fno-builtin by putting an attribute on the code being compiled?
Regardless of which solution you consider, it is always "putting an
attribute on the code being compiled", the question is where exactly and
what we do with it. I'm opposed to putting the attribute on the
definitions of the