search for: weak_for_runtim

Displaying 2 results from an estimated 2 matches for "weak_for_runtim".

Did you mean: weak_for_runtime
2016 Mar 11
2
RFC: A new ABI for virtual calls, and a change to the virtual call representation in the IR
> On Mar 11, 2016, at 9:56 AM, Reid Kleckner <rnk at google.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 9:41 AM, John McCall <rjmccall at apple.com <mailto:rjmccall at apple.com>> wrote: > Okay, so, it sounds to me like LLVM basically treats strong definitions as protected, then. Should we just formalize that? > > I guess the proposal here would be: > 1.
2016 Mar 11
2
RFC: A new ABI for virtual calls, and a change to the virtual call representation in the IR
...tra linkage > type: interposable (runtime_weak?). The other linkages are an attempt to preserve the ability to use STV_PROTECTED on weak definitions while eliminating protected visibility from LLVM. > We could split the linkage into multiple orthogonal bits, like: odr, weak_for_linker, > weak_for_runtime, can_be_dropped_if_unused, etc, but I think that is > an independent cleanup I agree that that would be best done independently. John.