search for: unnamedfunc

...e new Constants for individual relocations. The IR-entity should remain abstract enough that it’s not tied to a specific relocation, but it can still be lowered appropriately by different backends. > > As an update to the proposal, instead of `pltentry(@func)`, we can call it something like `unnamedfunc(@func)` and everywhere it’s used, it means: “The value used here is functionally equivalent to the original function, but may not be a reference to the original function. The address of this value is insignificant.” This is leveraged from `unnamed_addr` where the address of a global variable is ins...

> -----Original Message----- > From: Fāng-ruì Sòng <maskray at google.com> > Sent: Friday, August 21, 2020 4:04 PM > To: Eli Friedman <efriedma at quicinc.com> > Cc: Leonard Chan <leonardchan at google.com>; llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org > Subject: [EXT] Re: [llvm-dev] [RFC][LLVM] New Constant type for > representing function PLT entries > > On Fri, Aug

...derstand your rationale here. A PLT entry is a completely target specific concept because some targets don’t have PLTs. I don’t think there is any reason that a frontend would abstractly generate this unless they already have a target-specific plan in mind. >> >> If you go with your “unnamedfunc” approach, you’ll have to define the semantics of what that means, and it will need to mean something on targets without a PLT. If it isn’t generally implementable, then it is target specific again. >> >> I feel like you are trying (earnestly!) to make the IR better here, but by makin...

...re. A PLT entry is a completely target specific concept >> because some targets don’t have PLTs. I don’t think there is any reason >> that a frontend would abstractly generate this unless they already have a >> target-specific plan in mind. >> >> If you go with your “unnamedfunc” approach, you’ll have to define the >> semantics of what that means, and it will need to mean something on targets >> without a PLT. If it isn’t generally implementable, then it is target >> specific again. >> >> I feel like you are trying (earnestly!) to make the IR...

...specific concept >>>> because some targets don’t have PLTs. I don’t think there is any reason >>>> that a frontend would abstractly generate this unless they already have a >>>> target-specific plan in mind. >>>> >>>> If you go with your “unnamedfunc” approach, you’ll have to define the >>>> semantics of what that means, and it will need to mean something on targets >>>> without a PLT. If it isn’t generally implementable, then it is target >>>> specific again. >>>> >>>> I feel like yo...