MadCoder added a comment. 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. 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
