[LLVMdev] How to disable simplifying function parameters in llvm-g++

[Xiaolong Tang]

Thanks, Duncan.

> > The compilation substitutes "__position.0" for "__position", as shown below:
> >
> >    define linkonce_odr void @_ZNSt4listIiSaIiEE9_M_insertESt14_List_iteratorIiERKi(%"struct.std::list<int,std::allocator<int>  >"* %this, i64 %__position.0, i32* %__x) nounwind ssp { ... }
> 
> names like this only exist to make the LLVM IR more readable, and have no
> effect on the final assembler.  If you want to find out original parameter
> names you need to use debug info.

Note that the original parameter (of the function in concern) is of
type "struct.std::_List_const_iterator<int>", whereas the parameter
(after the compilation) is of type
"struct.std::_List_node_base"*. Evidently, llvm-g++ replaces the
original parameter with its sole field. This is understandable and the
LLVM output indicates this by using "__position.0" rather than
"__position". Further, llvm-g++ represents (bitcasts) the parameter
type "struct.std::_List_node_base"* as (into) i64.  Though this may
be decoded by analyzing the meta data with the function, I believe
that llvm-g++ has conducted some transformations somehow. To me, the
transformation looks likes scalar replacement.

To further understand such behavior (of llvm-g++), let's image that we
augment the above type "struct.std::_List_const_iterator<int>" with
one more dummy field. As a result, llvm-g++ replaces the original
parameter with two individual parameters which are the two fields of
the original parameter, illustrated as below.

 (..., i64 %__position.0, i64 %__position.1, i32 %data) nounwind ssp { ... }

> > P.S. Without any optimizations, g++ does NOT do this.
> 
> It's unclear to me what you mean here, since there are no names of this kind in
> the assembly files produced by g++.  Are you perhaps referring to the name g++
> prints in tree dumps?

Yes. My discussion only focuses on the front-end output. As to the
example in question, g++ preserves the original function parameter,
without replacing the parameter with its sole field. Is this clear
enough?

Best, 
Xiaolong