[LLVMdev] [Patch, RFC] Re: Adding support for explicitly specified TLS models (PR9788)

[Rafael Espíndola]

> I thought it was a good idea to make the user's choice explicit in the
> IR. If we combined the default and globaldynamic modes, LLVM wouldn't
> be able to tell the difference.
>
> It may or may not be important to be able to tell the difference, but
> it would be unfortunate if we'd have to go and change the IR format
> later because we limited ourselves here.
>
> Also, my patch does make a difference between the default and
> globaldynamic. If user specifies globaldynamic, LLVM will use that
> model, even if some other model would be better (it even adds support
> for doing globadynamic in non-PIC code). GCC does the same.

Do you know what is the rationale for that? The static linker will
optimize it anyway (but not do as good a job as the compiler could).

If unsure I think it is safer to go without the 'default'. It is
easier to add it to IL later than to remove it if it turns out we
don't need it.

> Thanks,
> Hans

Cheers,
Rafael

P.S.: Sorry for being so slow on the code reviews, was really busy.