[llvm-commits] [llvm] r111684 - in /llvm/trunk: docs/LangRef.html include/llvm-c/Core.h include/llvm/GlobalValue.h lib/AsmParser/LLLexer.cpp lib/AsmParser/LLParser.cpp lib/AsmParser/LLToken.h lib/Bitcode/Reader/BitcodeReader.cpp lib/Bitcode/Write
isanbard at gmail.com
Sun Aug 22 23:55:48 PDT 2010
On Aug 22, 2010, at 10:35 PM, Chris Lattner wrote:
> On Aug 22, 2010, at 3:43 PM, Bill Wendling wrote:
>> On Aug 20, 2010, at 3:14 PM, Anton Korobeynikov wrote:
>>>> Create the new linker type "linker_private_weak_def_auto".
>>> Maybe we should put a temporary veto on adding new linkage types?
>>> Or at least such patches deserve some discussion?
>>> Why is it not possible to emulate the behavior with some current
>>> linkage type and e.g. visibility setting?
>> Possibly? Though they do have differing semantics, so it could get confusing. How about this radical idea:
>> We have a "linker_private" linkage type. Then there could be a few sub-linkage types: default, weak, weak_def_auto, some-other-crazy-sub-type, etc. Does that sound vaguely plausible?
> This doesn't seem like a very well formed proposal. It's hard to comment on it without substantially more details.
It wasn't meant to be, and I don't care enough about it to produce one. For me it's a non-issue. We've decided that adding new linkage types is the proper course of action for these types of optimizations, even if they're used on only one platform.
More information about the llvm-commits