From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-patches-return-405506-listarch-gcc-patches=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 116794 invoked by alias); 19 Aug 2015 04:46:54 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-patches.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 116773 invoked by uid 89); 19 Aug 2015 04:46:53 -0000
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Virus-Found: No
X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS autolearn=unavailable version=3.3.2
X-HELO: mail-vk0-f50.google.com
Received: from mail-vk0-f50.google.com (HELO mail-vk0-f50.google.com) (209.85.213.50) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES128-GCM-SHA256 encrypted) ESMTPS; Wed, 19 Aug 2015 04:46:52 +0000
Received: by vkm66 with SMTP id 66so18439034vkm.1        for <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>; Tue, 18 Aug 2015 21:46:50 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.52.110.9 with SMTP id hw9mr13220976vdb.41.1439959610427; Tue, 18 Aug 2015 21:46:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.31.31.23 with HTTP; Tue, 18 Aug 2015 21:46:50 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAAs8HmwE5hBCv2H6g-o0QyBNSqS6c3Mhr=JCS+iNFMV=Q7=8bA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAAs8HmyB5jZS_zfHKeX9HEK3Eo59nVhuB4yfoGTy5hXV41YZYA@mail.gmail.com>	<CAFiYyc1b++CR5FJBG4cFTZ2ec+dWgxXgoYWP72GWHtQ8BPruLg@mail.gmail.com>	<CAAkRFZK3kgRbtCVTU7z04ugxSSCqmm_BA+Y=fW=MqnjNcV21Tg@mail.gmail.com>	<CAAs8HmzY-YPt2bE6ce7S68Uh42KvfOZfLyMzT-N8JTFMbu9yPg@mail.gmail.com>	<CAAs8HmwfrRfVuSU4iorW7ETscxxf4WqGx1qr+9+VeZ0Fe7xQKQ@mail.gmail.com>	<CAAs8HmyoUAawcggMC7NU-LO4186vM2D4KL+xkA81PWdO32BXPg@mail.gmail.com>	<CAAs8HmyVjF+cG10euUFNMZoLP6nV4V8nvqmCbNwSMgJr926C-Q@mail.gmail.com>	<CAJimCsGMs5B0ZbFRYo5Ju5OrBxxvUz74Xwp51-VmUCWXpobLmA@mail.gmail.com>	<CAAs8HmwE5hBCv2H6g-o0QyBNSqS6c3Mhr=JCS+iNFMV=Q7=8bA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2015 04:53:00 -0000
Message-ID: <CAJimCsF0uaxVKGTiHxTAW0yZgp57eCPj96-iFDACJ64_-CF_kg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] COMDAT Safe Module Level Multi versioning
From: Cary Coutant <ccoutant@gmail.com>
To: Sriraman Tallam <tmsriram@google.com>
Cc: Xinliang David Li <davidxl@google.com>, Richard Biener <richard.guenther@gmail.com>, 	"H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@gmail.com>, GCC Patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>, 	binutils <binutils@sourceware.org>, Yury Gribov <y.gribov@samsung.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-IsSubscribed: yes
X-SW-Source: 2015-08/txt/msg01043.txt.bz2

> Thanks, will make those changes.  Do you recommend a different name
> for this flag like -fmake-comdat-functions-static?

Well, the C++ ABI refers to this as "vague linkage." It may be a bit
too long or too ABI-specific, but maybe something like
-f[no-]use-vague-linkage-for-functions or
-f[no-]functions-vague-linkage?

And perhaps note in the doc that using this option may technically
break the C++ ODR, so it should be used only when you know what you're
doing.

-cary