David Spitzenberg
Hello Simon, hello Ben,
thank you very much to both of you for your encouraging answers!
Hello again!
First of all, I've two questions concerning your answer, Ben.
a)
The jump issue aside, I don't know how you would deal with tables-next-to-code. The prefix data support that currently available in LLVM is attached to functions and I unfortunately don't see that changing any time soon.
Looks like I messed things up with those info-tables. As far as I understood [1], these are part of the STG. Therefore, every function present at the STG-level needs a info-table. The code generator does generate info-tables for every proc-point after splitting them. But to me, this was a consequence of making them stand-alone functions.
Could you explain the need of further info-tables for 'inner' proc-points (those, which are not the entry-block of a function) to me, please?
Ahh, yes. I believe you are right; there should be no need for info tables on these proc-points given that they don't correspond to anything in the STG program. My apologies for muddying things! snip
To make control flow more apparent to LLVM, they came up with the following idea. Remark before showing the idea: I know that it greatly interferes with CPS. It leaves parts of the continuation-handling to the implicit LLVM call-stack. Further, this does not solve the problem of proc-point splitting at all. It is more a workaround than a solution. But it would greatly increase LLVM's possibilities to optimize code later on. That's why I found this idea worth mentioning. Especially because after reading your answer, Ben, I'm somewhat convinced that solving the problem of proc-point splitting is nearly impossible with the capabilities of LLVM IR available at the moment. Now back to the idea.
Well, don't let me dissuade you: firstly, I'm a rather fallible human and may have missed something; secondly, the LLVM folks have been quite receptive to new ideas and there is likely a reason they left the door open to expressing inter-procedure block references with `blockaddress`. You might consider asking about this on the LLVM list, assuming this isn't beyond the scope of your project. I'll leave the rest for those with better understanding of the whole picture to address. Cheers, - Ben