ChuanqiXu added a comment. In D131938#3727954 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D131938#3727954>, @ychen wrote:
>> Since the coroutines are going to split into pieces in the middle end so the >> address of labels are ambiguous that time. > > Do we split in the middle or copy the whole computed goto CFG? Yes. > I'd imagine the branch on a dynamic block address is like `n`-way branch > which is not feasible to split. Does/Would it fix the problem by letting the > ramp/resume function each have its own dispatch table? I skimmed through the > blockaddress handling during function cloning which looks insufficient to > handle this issue: > https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/e20d210eef92f3952de0e89ef2f01a146480a13b/llvm/lib/Transforms/Utils/CloneFunction.cpp#L177-L182, > it says "It is only legal to clone a function if a block address within that > function is never referenced outside of the function." . This is not true > when the dispatch table is a global variable. The key problem here is that the compiler don't know the idea 'dispatch table'. The dispatch table is just a global variable. And coroutines should just leave the global variable there just like other global variables. > "It is only legal to clone a function if a block address within that function > is never referenced outside of the function." This also shows the problem. The coroutines are multiple functions indeed. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D131938/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D131938 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
