tejohnson added a comment. In D36850#2968536 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D36850#2968536>, @modimo wrote:
> In D36850#2964293 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D36850#2964293>, @tejohnson wrote: > >> Good point on indirect calls. Rather than add a bit to the summary, can the >> flags just be set conservatively in any function containing an indirect call >> when we build the summaries initially? I think that would get the same >> effect. > > That could have an issue where A calls {indirect, B} and A gets propagated > upon from B without knowledge that the indirect call exists. Right now I've > got a FunFlags `hasUnknownCall` which marks these as non-propagatable. Ah, because there isn't a conservative setting of the flag...which raises a larger issue (but maybe I am completely missing something) - how do we distinguish between the NoUnwind summary flag not being set because we don't know yet (in which case we want the propagation from callees), vs because it cannot be NoUnwind (because there is a throw in the function)? Do we need to have a second flag indicating that a function contains a mayThrow instruction (other than calls, which are being handled by the propagation)? Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D36850/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D36850 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
