akhuang added a comment. In D137872#4357268 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D137872#4357268>, @efriedma wrote:
> In D137872#4348314 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D137872#4348314>, @akhuang wrote: > >> In D137872#4327615 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D137872#4327615>, @efriedma >> wrote: >> >>> I'm having a bit of trouble following how exactly the thunk creation is >>> working here... do we generate different code depending on whether the call >>> operator and/or the static invoker are referenced? >> >> So I think it used to be that the static invoker calls the call operator >> which contains the body of the lambda? And now both the static invoker and >> the call operator are delegating to this new __impl function. In >> EmitLambdaStaticInvokeBody it first calls EmitLambdaInAllocaCallOpFn to make >> the new call operator (which is populated using >> EmitLambdaDelegatingInvokeBody). And then inside >> EmitLambdaDelegatingInvokeBody it generates the new impl function and calls >> it in the body. Not sure if that answers the question, I agree the code is a >> bit roundabout. >> >>> Why is the function in EmitLambdaInAllocaCallOpFn not getting defined using >>> the normal CodeGenModule machinery? >> >> Do you mean why it's not using CodeGenModule machinery to generate the new >> call op body or why we're changing the original call op body? > > I mean why it's not using the CodeGenModule machinery. I understand there > are three function bodies involved. But I would expect that when you "emit" > the lambda call operator, it emits the entry point for the call and for the > call impl, and when you emit the static invoker, it just emits a call to the > call impl. > > Or... hmm. Is this actually erasing the existing definition of the call > operator, if it was already emitted? That probably doesn't actually work in > general; once a function is emitted, you can't re-emit it. Emitting a > function emits other related stuff like static variables; you can't > EmitFunctionBody() more than once. Either you need to decide when it's first > emitted, or you need to rewrite the signature of the definition and splice > the existing body in. good point, I realized I can just put the call operator emission where the call op is normally emitted, which removes the thing where I was trying to create a new call op while the static invoker body is being emitted. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D137872/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D137872 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
