[PATCH] D61670: [clang] [MinGW] Add the option -fno-autoimport

Wed Aug 23 14:56:42 PDT 2023

aeubanks added a comment.

In D61670#4607313 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D61670#4607313>, @mstorsjo wrote:

>> I expected the answer would be "yes", so I said "lgtm" and then phrased my question very awkwardly.
>
> Ah, thanks for the clarification!
>
> Any opinion on the name, `-fno-autoimport` vs `-fno-auto-import`, given the existing linker option `--disable-auto-import`?

Is there an official name, "auto-import"/"autoimport"/"auto import"? Since cc1 flags are changeable and this hasn't landed yet, I think it'd be nice to standardize before we commit on a stable name.
If there isn't already a name, I like the dash in "auto-import".

In D61670#4604554 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D61670#4604554>, @rnk wrote:

> In D61670#4604486 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D61670#4604486>, @mstorsjo wrote:
>
>> In D61670#4604145 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D61670#4604145>, @rnk wrote:
>>
>>> cc + at aeubanks @jyknight to consider using the code model for this purpose
>>
>> Hmm, I don't quite understand this comment; do you suggest that we after all should use the code model for controlling the use of `.refptr` stubs too - didn't we conclude earlier that it isn't a great fit for that?
>
> Sorry, let me elaborate. Since the first round of review, Arthur and James have been looking at x86 code models, in particular the medium code model. I guess what I really want to ask is, Arthur and James, do you agree with our decision that the code model should not control the formation of these COFF refptr stubs?
>
> I expected the answer would be "yes", so I said "lgtm" and then phrased my question very awkwardly.

Yeah, at least with my understanding code models shouldn't change whether or not things are dso_local or not. They should only affect the instruction sequence we use to access globals/functions.

Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D61670/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D61670