[llvm-commits] [PATCH] LTO code generator options

[Viktor Kutuzov]

Hi Devang,

Unless I'm missing something, bitcode does not depend on subtarget features, does it? Features come to play when someone compiles 
for a specific target.
Encoding subtarget features in the llvm bitcode itself would be mixing together 2 unrelated things with different scopes.
What use cases you are thinking of?

Viktor

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Devang Patel" <devang.patel at gmail.com>
To: "Viktor Kutuzov" <vkutuzov at accesssoftek.com>
Cc: "Rafael Espindola" <espindola at google.com>; "Commit Messages and Patches for LLVM" <llvm-commits at cs.uiuc.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2009 3:58 PM
Subject: Re: [llvm-commits] [PATCH] LTO code generator options


Hi All,

I am sorry to join the party late, but wouldn't it make sense to
encode subtarget features in to the llvm bitcode itself (function
attributes)?  If the info is encoded in llvm bitcode files directly
then it would be useful in other situations also.

?
-
Devang