[llvm-branch-commits] [llvm] [X86] Avoid generating nested CALLSEQ for TLS pointer function arguments (PR #106965)

[James Y Knight via llvm-branch-commits]

jyknight wrote:

This sounds sketchy to me. Is it really valid to enter a second call inside another call's CALLSEQ markers, but only if we avoid adding a second nested set of markers? It feels like attacking the symptom of the issue, but not the root cause. (I'm not certain it's _not_ valid, but it just seems really suspicious...)

https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/106965