[llvm-dev] [RFC][LLVM] New Constant type for representing function PLT entries

Renato Golin via llvm-dev llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Fri Aug 21 08:39:06 PDT 2020

On Fri, 21 Aug 2020 at 16:20, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote:

> FWIW, I think that we all agree to that. I don't see that what's being
> proposed changes this general philosophy. The general problem is: what
> happens when that lowering has multiple good options, and the ABI requires
> particular choices under certain circumstances?

If this is decided from the front-end and needs to survive all the way to
the back-end, why not just add a generic function attribute?

Perhaps I'm interpreting this the wrong way, but adding a special
(independent) entry to the IR that hints at an ABI correctness seems
fragile to me.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20200821/44d0b64b/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the llvm-dev mailing list