[llvm] [IR] Define empty and malformed !callees semantics (PR #221550)

[Nikita Popov via llvm-commits]

================
@@ -7778,12 +7778,24 @@ Example (assuming 64-bit pointers):
 
 #### '`callees`' Metadata
 
-`callees` metadata may be attached to indirect call sites. If `callees`
-metadata is attached to a call site, and any callee is not among the set of
-functions provided by the metadata, the behavior is undefined. The intent of
-this metadata is to facilitate optimizations such as indirect-call promotion.
-For example, in the code below, the call instruction may only target the
-`add` or `sub` functions:
+`callees` metadata may be attached to call sites.
+Its operands provide an exhaustive list of possible callees.
+The list may be conservative: a listed function need not be dynamically feasible, but on every defined execution of the call the callee must be one of the listed functions.
+The order and duplication of operands are semantically irrelevant.
+The intent of this metadata is to facilitate optimizations such as indirect-call promotion.
+
+The constraint applies whether the called operand is a constant or not.
+Executing a direct call whose target is not in the list has undefined behavior.
+If the direct target is in the list, the attachment is redundant and may be dropped.
+
+An empty node is an exhaustive empty set, so executing the call has undefined behavior.
+If the metadata is absent, no exhaustive callee information is provided.
+
+Each operand must refer to a `Function`.
+If any operand does not, the entire attachment provides no information and must be ignored.
----------------
nikic wrote:

Why should a non-function entry invalidate the entire list?

https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/221550