[PATCH] D18321: Add support for no-jump-tables

[Hans Wennborg via llvm-commits]

hans added a comment.

In http://reviews.llvm.org/D18321#381998, @echristo wrote:

> So having it as a function attribute was my idea :)
>
> Otherwise, it's a good question. What should happen in LTO when you ask for one translation unit to be compiled without jump table support and the other one to be compiled with jump table support? Which one wins here? For some things it's more obvious, I'm not sure here.


I suppose it depends on the motivation for this patch. Why would one be compiling with -no-jump-tables? Is it just an optimization thing, or could there be a situation where a jump table would actually not work, despite the target supporting it in general? (Apologies if this is obvious, but it would be great to have it explained in the description of this patch.)


http://reviews.llvm.org/D18321