MaskRay added a comment.
In D88712#2333294 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D88712#2333294>, @rsmith wrote:
> If the answer is that we consider (2) to be incorrect, but that this is only
> a partial step in that direction, I think that's fine -- that's enough that
> we can know where the bug is if / when people complain that we still generate
> calls to `memcpy` even when we used an `asm` label to indicate the library
> symbol was renamed to something else. In that light, this is really a
> workaround rather than a fix: we can't easily stop the middle-end from
> synthesizing calls to library functions with the wrong symbol, because we
> don't have a good way to tell it those library functions were renamed, but we
> can at least reduce the rate of incidence by avoiding generating the
> intrinsic calls that are likely to get lowered to library functions.
>
> Given that understanding, should this:
>
> double sin(double x) asm("real_sin");
> double f(double d) { return __builtin_sin(d); }
>
> ... call the `sin` symbol or the `real_sin` symbol? I think with the current
> patch it'll call the `sin` symbol, but calling `real_sin` seems correct.
>
> In any case, assuming the above understanding is right, this looks like a
> step in the right direction.
Thanks for the review! For this example, GCC emits `real_sin` but we fail to do
so. Added it to the test.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D88712/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D88712
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
