[llvm-dev] RFC: We need to explicitly state that some functions are reserved by LLVM

[Chris Lattner via llvm-dev]

> On Oct 26, 2017, at 8:14 PM, Chandler Carruth via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> 
> 
> One alternative that seems appealing but doesn't actually help would be to make `TargetLibraryInfo` ignore internal functions. That is how the C++ spec seems to handle this for example (C library function names are reserved only when they have linkage). But this doesn't work well for LLVM because we want to be able to LTO an internalized C library. So I think we need the rule for LLVM function names to not rely on linkage here.

Oh sorry, (almost) TLDR I didn’t get to this part.  I don’t see how this is applicable.  If you’re statically linking in a libc, I think it is fine to forgo the optimizations that TargetLibraryInfo is all about.

If these transformations are important to use in this case, we should invent a new attribute, and the thing that turns libc symbols into internal ones should add the attribute to the (now internal) libc symbols.

-Chris

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20171026/8266bb30/attachment.html>