[LLVMdev] Different signatures or smart casting?

[Ksenia Dolgorukova]

They both was compiled with clang for 64-bit target. These example
bitcode files was modified by hand to check if this case will work.
Actually, this feature was revealed when I compiled 'coremark'
benchmark with LTO for x68-64 target. I think, different signatures
was caused by preprocessor directives.
But I wander how can it work.

2015-04-10 21:05 GMT+03:00 Nick Lewycky <nicholas at mxc.ca>:
> Ksenia Dolgorukova wrote:
>>
>> Hello!
>> I linked two bitcode files like described below using LTO and find
>> they are linked fine instead of making an error.
>> ----------
>> 1.bc
>> ----------
>> ...
>> define i32 @main(i32 %argc, i8** %argv) #0 {
>> entry:
>> ...
>> %call = call i32 @_Z1aj(i64 2)
>> ...
>> }
>> declare i32 @_Z1aj(i64) #1
>> ...
>>
>> ----------
>> 2.bc
>> ----------
>> ...
>> define i32 @_Z1aj(i32 %b) #0 {
>> entry:
>> ...
>> }
>> ...
>>
>> ----------
>>
>> In the first file function "_Z1aj" is declared as having i64 argument,
>> whereas in the second file the function "_Z1aj" is described as having
>> i32 argument!
>>
>> Are function signatures different?
>
>
> They're both 'a(unsigned int)', but perhaps you compiled one of them
> targeting a 32-bit platform and the other targeting a 64-bit platform? What
> triple is at the top of each .bc file?
>
>
>> How does LLVM cast them?
>> Could it be a bug?
>>
>



-- 
Best regards, Ksenia