Is there any reason to not propose to change LLVM's prefix semantics such that the function's symbol points to the function body rather than

Re. patching LLVM: Are there any other uses of the symbol offset feature

#4213: LLVM: Add support for TNTC to LLVM compiler suite -------------------------------------+------------------------------------ Reporter: dterei | Owner: dterei Type: feature request | Status: new Priority: low | Milestone: 7.6.2 Component: Compiler (LLVM) | Version: 6.13 Resolution: | Keywords: Operating System: Unknown/Multiple | Architecture: Unknown/Multiple Type of failure: None/Unknown | Difficulty: Unknown Test Case: | Blocked By: Blocking: | Related Tickets: -------------------------------------+------------------------------------ Comment (by bgamari): '''Replying to [comment:21 altaic]''' the prefix data? I hope that the LLVM folks would reject outright any proposal to change the semantics of an already released feature in a non-compatible way. Especially when there is nothing wrong with the existing semantics. '''Replying to [comment:19 altaic]:''' than fixing the symbols for functions that use prefix data? If not, how about patching the LLVM prefix code to accept an option (a bool) to have symbols point to the function entry? As I understand it, the proposals were designed explicitly to keep the matters of prefix data and symbol offsets orthogonal. In my opinion this was the right decision, even if it does require a bit more work. The only issue here is that symbol offset support was never implemented. I have a patch for this although it needs a little reworking. '''Replying to [comment:20 dterei]:'''

Firstly, its cool that LLVM has added this. It seems we could indeed implement TNTC with it. However based my quick understanding we couldnt implement it in a wag compatible with the current design.

See above. There is no reason why TNTC can't be implemented once symbol offsets are in place. Your points surrounding the mangler's other roles are valid but I'd still say we should start trimming it where we can. If we can support TNTC without shuffling sections around, we are a little closer to deprecating the mangler. -- Ticket URL: http://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/4213#comment:24 GHC http://www.haskell.org/ghc/ The Glasgow Haskell Compiler