[llvm-commits] [llvm] r107205 - in /llvm/trunk: bindings/ada/llvm/ docs/ include/llvm-c/ include/llvm/ include/llvm/CodeGen/ include/llvm/MC/ include/llvm/Target/ lib/AsmParser/ lib/Bitcode/Reader/ lib/Bitcode/Writer/ lib/CodeGen/ lib/CodeGen/AsmPrinter/ lib/Linker/ lib/MC/ lib/Target/ lib/Target/CppBackend/ lib/Target/XCore/AsmPrinter/ lib/Transforms/IPO/ lib/VMCore/ tools/llvm-nm/

[Chris Lattner]

Please tailor this for Darwin, there is no reason to speculatively generalize this for targets that don't exist.  If a target starts existing that wants to use this, it will probably need other hooks.  Trying to anticipate this theoretical possibility just clutters the code.

-Chris

On Jul 1, 2010, at 1:35 AM, Bill Wendling <isanbard at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Jun 30, 2010, at 9:06 PM, Chris Lattner wrote:
> 
>> On Jun 30, 2010, at 11:47 AM, Bill Wendling wrote:
>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Unless someone here can really spell out what these things really
>>>> mean, without mentioning assembler directives, without mentioning
>>>> special label naming conventions, without describing it in terms of
>>>> what gcc does for Objective C, and without citing "this is what the
>>>> Objective C people say we need", and without excluding any magical
>>>> semantics, it would be best to avoid confusion.
>>>> 
>>> I view these linkages as being like their non-"linker linkage" counterparts, but that the linker will remove them from the final linked image. So, "linker_private" is "private" but the linker will remove it from the final linked image and so on. "linker_private_weak" has no non-"linker linkage" counterpart, but its semantics are a natural progression maybe?
>> 
>> The semantics are clear to me: "lfoo" labels are stripped by the linker, but cause multiple definition cause redefinition errors.  "weak lfoo" labels are stripped by the linker, but multiple definitions get merged.  This doesn't seem that complicated.
>> 
> It's not. And it's essentially what I wrote in the RFC that I sent to llvmdev. But you just used a special label naming convention in your description, which is one thing Dan asked not be used to define this.
> 
> My remaining concern is that you seem to be asking me to tailor this linkage type for a particular platform (Darwin).
> 
> -bw
>