modimo added a comment. In D36850#2990771 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D36850#2990771>, @tejohnson wrote:
> 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)? Only call instructions can throw (what ultimately performs the throw operation is an opaque call to __cxa_throw()) which simplifies the problem. If all calls are known, we only need to examine the callees for accurate 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
