pcc added a comment. In D115844#3321235 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D115844#3321235>, @ychen wrote:
> In D115844#3321190 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D115844#3321190>, @pcc wrote: > >> On the bug you have: >> >> define internal fastcc void >> @​_Z4callIiE4taskv.resume(%_Z4callIiE4taskv.Frame* noalias nonnull >> align 8 dereferenceable(24 >> ) %FramePtr) #​1 prologue <{ i32, i32 }> <{ i32 846595819, i32 >> trunc (i64 sub (i64 ptrtoint (i8** @​1 to i64), i64 ptrtoint (void ()* >> @​_Z4callIiE4taskv to i64)) to i32) }> {...} >> >> Is it possible for the C/C++ code to take the address of the function >> `_Z4callIiE4taskv.resume` and call it indirectly? > > `*.resume` is a compiler inserted function that is opaque to the programmer. > It is called indirectly most of the time if not all the time. Yes, but not indirectly called from C/C++ but rather from compiler-generated code right? That's presumably why this patch + D116130 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D116130> worked for @zhuhan0. >> If not, it seems like the right fix would be to arrange for the prologue >> data to be dropped on the `.resume` function instead of duplicating it >> there. I would also imagine that whatever signature you have on the >> `.resume` function would be incorrect since it appears that the coro >> splitting pass will use a different function signature for that function. > > That is addressed by D116130 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D116130>. @rjmccall > suggested the direction of this patch (which I agreed) > https://reviews.llvm.org/D114728#3159303. Okay. It seems unfortunate to have to special-case this just because it uses relative relocations. But that's probably the best that we can do without changing the global variable initializer representation (as well as prefix/prologue data) to be blob plus relocations. ================ Comment at: clang/lib/CodeGen/CGExpr.cpp:5171 (!TargetDecl || !isa<FunctionDecl>(TargetDecl))) { + assert((CGM.getCodeGenOpts().CodeModel == "default" || + CGM.getCodeGenOpts().CodeModel == "small") && ---------------- What happens when building with other code models? Hopefully we get an error of some sort before hitting this assertion failure, right? ================ Comment at: llvm/lib/CodeGen/AsmPrinter/AsmPrinter.cpp:843 + + // Emit the function prologue data for the indirect call sanitizer. + if (const MDNode *MD = F.getMetadata(LLVMContext::MD_func_sanitize)) { ---------------- What if we have both prologue data and this metadata? Should it be an error? Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D115844/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D115844 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
