[PATCH] D25300: ThinLTO: handles modules with empty summaries

[Teresa Johnson via llvm-commits]

tejohnson added a comment.

Still have question about why we can't cache if there is no module summary (assuming we do have a hash).



================
Comment at: test/ThinLTO/X86/empty_module_with_cache.ll:14
+; RUN:  -r=%t2.bc,_main,plx 
+; RUN: ls %t.cache | count 1
+
----------------
tejohnson wrote:
> mehdi_amini wrote:
> > tejohnson wrote:
> > > Why do we have 1 cache entry for llvm-lto2 but 2 for llvm-lto?
> > We haven't hooked the cache pruning apparently.
> I would expect llvm-lto2 to have more files in the cache without pruning. I guess with the current patch we should actually only have 1 since you are preventing caching for the empty module that has an empty summary (although I have a high-level question about that earlier)? So I guess the question is why we still get 2 for llvm-lto?
Oh got it, llvm-lto produces the timestamp due to pruning, that is the extra file.


https://reviews.llvm.org/D25300