[llvm] r199244 - Reapply "LTO: add API to set strategy for -internalize"

[Duncan P. N. Exon Smith]

On Apr 2, 2014, at 13:22, Rafael Espíndola <rafael.espindola at gmail.com> wrote:

>> But isn't the C API stable?  Isn't it too late to roll back this change?
> 
> I think we call it stable between releases. In the past at least I
> have made changes knowing that that particular function was not in any
> released version.

Well, I don't really have an opinion here; I'm asking, not telling.  Nick,
is ld64 using this yet?

(If not, then your guess is better than mine whether there are out-of-tree
users.)

I'm still interested:  is there an actual policy here?

> Even it we are now stuck with it in the C api, I would probably
> implement it as close to the C api as possible. For example, please
> don't keep the OnlyHidden option in createInternalizePass.

Why?  It seems clean to me as is.  Rather than passing an enumerator where some values are invalid (but will never be passed), it's reduced to a Boolean flag.  Or do you think we should call createInternalizePass() even
when LTO_INTERNALIZE_NONE?  Or what exactly?

Sorry if I'm missing something obvious.