forked from llvm/llvm-project
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 41
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Changes to support TLS access emitted in ILC (x64 win/linux) #429
Merged
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
2 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Why is this needed? Could we just mark things const on the objwriter side? Changes to LLVM outside of tools/objwriter need to be ported every time we update LLVM so there's a lot of value in keeping them as minimal as possible.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I tried and propagating the const requires a lot of changes (const can be viral).
It is also inconsistent with the treatment other section accessors - i.e why getTLSDataSection is a const and getTLSBSSSection isn't?
I think the difference is unintentional. If we want const, we should make other sections accessors const as well.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
One possibility is to keep
getTLSDataSection()
asconst
(for no reason) and just cast the const away in the object writer.There is a danger that something may eventually make dependency on this being const and it would not be easily noticeable when updating.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Such workaround stands out in the code and feels like a mildly dangerous hack.
I think we can do such change if removing the
const
becomes a burden when updating. It probably won't if upstream code does not change. It does not look like this part changes often.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Just to be sure - I have noted the concern, but any way to deal with this issue has a downside. Removing the 'const' seems not distinctly worse than other solutions.
We need to pick one way to move forward while decision is not binding, since it is an implementation detail that can be changed. I am going to merge what we have, but will keep an eye if this becomes an issue.