[PATCH] D18321: Add support for no-jump-tables

Eric Christopher via llvm-commits llvm-commits at lists.llvm.org
Wed Mar 23 15:01:26 PDT 2016

echristo added a comment.

So having it as a function attribute was my idea :)

Otherwise, it's a good question. What should happen in LTO when you ask for one translation unit to be compiled without jump table support and the other one to be compiled with jump table support? Which one wins here? For some things it's more obvious, I'm not sure here.



More information about the llvm-commits mailing list