Prabhuk wrote: @nikic, `Is the content of this OB the same as CFI !type metadata on function definitions?` — Yes. It is the same. I’ve udpated the OB name to `callee_type`.
I misunderstood the correctness question assuming that it was about whether there will be miscompilation if callee_type OB was dropped. Echoing @ilovepi's response, dropping the callee_type OB will result in less precise (possibly incorrect) call graph information in the callgraph section. Hopefully the loss in precision can be caught by the tests that are added in the set of follow up patches to this one. OB vs Metadata (extending type metadata or introducing new list of types metadata) — I am not opposed to any of the three approaches but handling the callee_type information through operand bundle feels appropriate and cleaner. @nikic Can you please weigh in on this to decide the direction of this patch? Thank you. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/87573 _______________________________________________ llvm-branch-commits mailing list llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-branch-commits
