search for: linker_private_weak

This patch introduces a the new "linker_private_weak" linkage type. Why a new linkage type? The idea behind the "linker" linkage types is that they are used by the linker and then discarded. I.e., the symbols won't show up in the final linked image. In that regard, all "linker" linkage types are inherently "private&...

On Jun 30, 2010, at 1:36 PM, Bill Wendling wrote: > This patch introduces a the new "linker_private_weak" linkage type. > > Why a new linkage type? The idea behind the "linker" linkage types is that they are used by the linker and then discarded. I.e., the symbols won't show up in the final linked image. In that regard, all "linker" linkage types are inherently &quo...

...010, at 9:52 PM, Chris Lattner wrote: > On Jun 30, 2010, at 1:36 PM, Bill Wendling wrote: > >> I implemented the new linkage to have its own prefix from linker_private. As it currently stands, the symbol's prefix ("l") is the same for "linker_private" and "linker_private_weak". If this will always be the case, then I can remove the code in my patch that allows for a different prefix. > > I'm quite certain that it will always be the case :), please remove MAI::LinkerPrivateWeakGlobalPrefix and Mangler::LinkerPrivateWeak. > Okay. I'll go ahead and...

On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 12:56 PM, Duncan P. N. Exon Smith < dexonsmith at apple.com> wrote: > > However, I think this would set a bad precedent. There's nowhere else > (that I know of) where we accept two versions of assembly. The > LLParser is relatively easy to work with because it doesn't have that > kind of historical baggage. I can think of two precedents: