[compiler-rt] [llvm] [RFC][Transforms][IPO] Add func suffix in ArgumentPromotion and DeadArgumentElimination (PR #109899)

[Mircea Trofin via llvm-commits]

mtrofin wrote:

> > I recommend having a RFC for this. First, names are important in a number of scenarios, currently - @xur-llvm can detail cases where the linux kernel wouldn't build because of name suffixes.
> 
> Full LTO already have lots of suffixes, how profiling handle this? Yes, I would like to know more about this and I think we should resolve it. gcc has suffixes and gcc has the same problem?
> 
> > Second, I'd like to take a step back and understand alternatives (for which a more detailed description of the scenario, in a RFC, would be a good/necessary idea). For example, and in the absence of more information, I wonder why not leave the names use function level metadata, and save it into a section in the binary?
> 
> A lot of discussion already in #105742. Ultimately, what we want is the precise func signature for every func. What you proposed is okay, save func -> signature in a section of the binary. I am wondering how this can be done.

What seems to be missing in those discussions, and I'd hope to see more spelled out in a RFC, is the user scenario: why does the function name not reflecting argument changes matter, what user scenario breaks?


https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/109899