[llvm-dev] What can the optimizer assume about the memory a global function pointer points to?

[Manuel Jacob via llvm-dev]

On 2020-04-16 18:26, Hiroshi Yamauchi wrote:
> I am not sure if the IR spec that explicitly talks about this, but I'm
> under the impression that the code memory is assumed to be constant or
> abstracted out at the IR level and the IR optimizer does not need to 
> think
> about the code getting modified or just treats it as undefined 
> behavior.

One case where the Language Reference explicitly mentions the 
possibility of modifying machine code is Prologue Data: 
http://llvm.org/docs/LangRef.html#prologue-data

So at least the prologue part is seemingly not considered constant. The 
question of what ordering restrictions are placed between calls and code 
potentially modifying the callee machine code is still unclear, though.