MadCoder added a comment.

In D73208#1836789 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D73208#1836789>, @dexonsmith wrote:

> In D73208#1836722 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D73208#1836722>, @MadCoder wrote:
>
> > In D73208#1836704 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D73208#1836704>, @dexonsmith 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > In D73208#1835264 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D73208#1835264>, @MadCoder 
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > In D73208#1835051 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D73208#1835051>, 
> > > > @dexonsmith wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Why isn't a similar dance needed for non-direct methods?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > because non direct methods do not need an `llvm::Function` to be 
> > > > synthesized at the call-site. direct methods do, and they form one with 
> > > > the type of the declaration they see. Then that same `llvm::Function` 
> > > > is used when you CodeGen the Implementation, so if there's a mismatch, 
> > > > sadness ensues because the LLVM IR verifier will notice the discrepancy 
> > > > between the declared return type of the function and the actual types 
> > > > coming out of the `ret` codepaths.
> > > >
> > > > Regular obj-C methods use the _implementation_ types for the codegen 
> > > > (the declaration(s) aren't even consulted) and I want to stick at what 
> > > > obj-c does as much as I can.
> > > >
> > > > (as a data point: If you use obj-C types with C functions, the type of 
> > > > the first declaration seen is used instead).
> > >
> > >
> > > Okay, that makes sense to me.
> > >
> > > Another solution would be to change IRGen for the implementation: if the 
> > > declaration already exists (`getFunction`), do a bitcast + RAUW dance to 
> > > fix it up (and update the `DirectMethodDefinitions` table).  WDYT?
> >
> >
> > I didn't want to do that because that would mean that the type used for the 
> > implementation would depart from dynamic Objective-C methods, and it feels 
> > that it shouldn't. hence I took this option.
>
>
> I think we're talking across each other.  The idea is check the type when 
> generating the implementation; if it's not correct, you fix it (need to 
> update existing uses to bitcast).  So the type used for the implementation 
> would match dynamic methods.


ah I see, I don't know how to do that, I couldn't figure out how to fix the 
function declaration, if you want to give it a stab I'd love it.


Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D73208/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D73208



_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits

Reply via email to