sdardis requested changes to this revision.
sdardis added a reviewer: kparzysz.
sdardis added a comment.
This revision now requires changes to proceed.
+kparzysz as Hexagon also makes use of the small data section.
================
Comment at: docs/LangRef.rst:629
+corresponding to the LLVM module, section information specified in the
+declaration is retained in LLVM IR to enable OpenCL processes.
+
----------------
efriedma wrote:
> This doesn't really explain the part that matters. For LangRef, it doesn't
> matter how the frontend decides to generate declarations (and it might be
> different for frontends other than clang). And OpenCL might motivate this,
> but it has nothing to do with the semantics.
>
> The key question here is what it actually means. Is it a promise the that a
> definition will exist for the given symbol in the given section? If so, what
> happens if the symbol is actually in a different section? ("Undefined
> behavior" is probably an acceptable answer, but it needs to be stated
> explicitly.)
> to enable OpenCL processes.
for targets which make use of this section information.
I would also work in a sentence that says that attaching section information to
a external declaration is an assertion or promise that the definition is
located in that section. If the definition is actually located in a different
section the behaviour is undefined.
I'm favouring "undefined behaviour" in the error case as behaviour is so target
and environment specific.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D36712
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
