ritter-x2a wrote: > This sounds sketchy to me. Is it really valid to enter a second call inside > another call's CALLSEQ markers, but only if we avoid adding a second nested > set of markers? It feels like attacking the symptom of the issue, but not the > root cause. (I'm not certain it's _not_ valid, but it just seems really > suspicious...)
>From what I've gathered from the source comments and the >[patch](https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/228978c0dcfc9a9793f3dc8a69f42471192223bc) > introducing the code that inserts these CALLSEQ markers for TLSADDRs, their >only point here is to stop shrink-wrapping from moving the function >prologue/epilogue past the call to get the TLS address. This should also be >given when the TLSADDR is in another CALLSEQ. I am however by no means an expert on this topic; I'd appreciate more insights on which uses of CALLSEQ markers are and are not valid (besides the MachineVerifier checks). https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/106965 _______________________________________________ llvm-branch-commits mailing list llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-branch-commits
