First time post to this list; huge apologies if I’m posting to the wrong place.
The problem I was noticing is that a simple naked function would cause very unexpected behaviour. I simplified it to this test case:
test.c:
attribute((naked)) void NakedTest(int value, int value2)
{
asm(“”);
}
clang -S test.cpp
test.s:
.section __TEXT,__text,regular,pure_instructions
.globl __Z9NakedTestii
.align 4, 0x90
__Z9NakedTestii: ## @_Z9NakedTestii
.cfi_startproc
BB#0:
movl %edi, -4(%rbp)
movl %esi, -8(%rbp)
InlineAsm Start
InlineAsm End
ret
.cfi_endproc
clang -flto -S test.cpp
test.s:
define void @_Z9NakedTestii(i32 %value, i32 %value2) nounwind uwtable noinline ssp naked {
entry:
%value.addr = alloca i32, align 4
%value2.addr = alloca i32, align 4
store i32 %value, i32* %value.addr, align 4
store i32 %value2, i32* %value2.addr, align 4
call void asm sideeffect “”, “~{dirflag},~{fpsr},~{flags}”() nounwind, !srcloc !0
ret void
}
The bolded instructions above are generated in debug builds, causing problems. This happens in all architectures that I’ve tested on (ARM, x86, x64)
I’ve attached a patch file which I fixes the problem. I don’t know if I’ve done it the right way (I only downloaded and looked at the source for clang for the first time 2 hours ago), but here’s the newer result:
clang -S test.cpp
test.s:
.section __TEXT,__text,regular,pure_instructions
.globl __Z9NakedTestii
.align 4, 0x90
__Z9NakedTestii: ## @_Z9NakedTestii
.cfi_startproc
BB#0: ## %entry
InlineAsm Start
InlineAsm End
ret
.cfi_endproc
clang -flto -S test.cpp
test.s:
define void @_Z9NakedTestii(i32, i32) nounwind uwtable noinline ssp naked {
entry:
call void asm sideeffect “”, “~{dirflag},~{fpsr},~{flags}”() nounwind, !srcloc !0
ret void
}
Any comments, or alternative fixes to this problem would be greatly appreciated!
Thanks,
Jeffrey Lim
CodeGenFunction.cpp.patch (582 Bytes)