> I am not sure I understand the intended semantics of the UnnamedAddr argument 
> to GetOrCreateLLVMGlobal.  Is it “this use does not care about the specific 
> address”?  Because, if so, the (existing) logic is completely backwards: we 
> need to be *clearing* the flag on the global if the argument is ever *false*. 
>  And that seems like the most reasonable semantics, frankly.
>
> Also, the idea in the existing code that all runtime variables are 
> unnamed_addr seems bogus to me.  __dso_handle is a specific example of a 
> variable whose address value *is* semantically important.  This sort of thing 
> would be important if there were any plausible transformations at all that 
> involve unnamed_addr on external variable declarations.
>
> Also, the assertion is wrong: if something introduces a “runtime" declaration 
> (e.g. by just declaring and using a global variable with the right name) 
> before CodeGen emits its first intrinsic use of it, the declaration will not 
> be marked unnamed_addr.
>
> So, basically, right now, this entire code path is useless and wrong.  Is 
> there a plan to apply it in situations where it wouldn’t be useless, i.e. to 
> non-runtime user declarations?

So, on how the patch is organized:

* The structure the patch uses is that when the variable is first
created, its unnamed_addr is set to the value of the argument.
* We then check that no user expect that a variable is unnamed_addr
when in fact it isn't. I tried to make the check more strict by
asserting that Entry->getUnnamedAddr() == UnnamedAddr, but that fails
deep down in some objc cases that create runtime variables and access
them as regular ones.

But to the more important point: Should we be adding unnamed_addr in
the first place? I am not sure. Back in
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/cfe-commits/Week-of-Mon-20110110/037796.html
Chris asked if we should. I could not find the entire discussion (the
patch that ended up being committed is simpler) and I am still not
sure exactly when CreateRuntimeVariable should be used.

An alternative patch that simply never sets it in
CreateRuntimeVariable is attached.

Cheers,
Rafael

Attachment: t.patch
Description: Binary data

_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits

Reply via email to