search for: linkonceani

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Eric Christopher" <echristo at gmail.com> > To: "Reid Kleckner" <rnk at google.com>, "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov> > Cc: "llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> > Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2016 11:34:56 AM > Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] RFC: Add an "interposible" linkage

> > This scares me a little for linkonce -- there's a minor change to > semantics if the importing module would have linked against a > *different* definition of the same symbol -- but I'm not really > sure it matters much. > > This should not be an issue in practice as it exists non thinLTO compilations too. For instance changing the optimization level of one module

As mentioned in the Updated ThinLTO RFC ( http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2015-May/086211.html), I am sending the symbol linkage and renaming required by ThinLTO as a separate RFC. It is included below. I've also attached the doc in pdf form, since the formatting (especially for the table at the end) may not come through in the copied text below well. Thanks! Teresa ThinLTO

Thanks for the comments! Responses below. Teresa On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 1:06 PM, Duncan P. N. Exon Smith < dexonsmith at apple.com> wrote: > > > On 2015-Jul-14, at 13:33, Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google.com> wrote: > > > > As mentioned in the Updated ThinLTO RFC ( > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2015-May/086211.html), I am > sending the

I think that all makes sense. You're just adding the missing non-ODR conterpart of 'external' linkage. I could imagine having "external / external_odr" linkage for example. That said, do you think we should take the opportunity to split out a bit for interposability so that we can kill off the *_odr linkage variants? Today's non-ODR weak functions would look more like