[PATCH] D42267: [ThinLTO] Allow 0 to be a valid value for pruning interval for C LTO API.

[Katya Romanova via Phabricator via llvm-commits]

kromanova added a comment.

> I am definitely not against the change. It would be good to have the number means the same thing in C/C++ API. I think ld64 can be updated in advance before we release 7.0 so we can have a larger compatibility window so I don't think this should be a blocker.

So, can I assume that I got an "OK" from the other main stakeholder who is using C LTO API? BTW, I CC-ed you to another small patch https://reviews.llvm.org/D42446, where I added a couple of missing APIs for controlling cache policy. You might want to expose it to ld64 users.

> I don't really like that we have the default in multiple places depending on which tool you use. So it seems we have default pruning interval in CachePruningPolicy and llvm-lto (and maybe in some linker that uses the C/C++ interfaces as well). That is probably the reason why C API choose to ignore 0 because if you have a cl::opt initialize to zero, it means it will respect the default from CachePruningPolicy.

I agree. Do you have an idea how to fix this? Feel free to propose a patch.


Repository:
  rL LLVM

https://reviews.llvm.org/D42267