-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 5.5k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Add a codegen option to disable use of jlplts #51123
Conversation
LGTM |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Do we document these things anywhere? I feel like folks should be warned that this generally emits slower code for most platforms (our PLT is better optimized than most platform linkers can do in most cases). But it can make sense where only static libraries really exist and there is not really a notion of posix_spawn (like WASM and embedded)
Probably easiest to document the fields of the julia proxy struct. |
Will merge as is and open a separate PR for the docs. |
- Add documentation to CodegenParams fields per request in #51123 - Fix compare_cgparams which hadn't been updated for recent additions - Remove unused and untested generic_context The latter was a codegen option that I added, but eventually ended up not using anywhere, so remove it for the time being. That said, I may end up in a situation where I need it again in the very near future, so I may end up eating my words here, but if I need to put it back, I'll include a test at least ;).
- Add documentation to CodegenParams fields per request in #51123 - Fix compare_cgparams which hadn't been updated for recent additions - Remove unused and untested generic_context The latter was a codegen option that I added, but eventually ended up not using anywhere, so remove it for the time being. That said, I may end up in a situation where I need it again in the very near future, so I may end up eating my words here, but if I need to put it back, I'll include a test at least ;).
Alternative to #51108 with the same objectives.