Joseph Ferano
e403e74b90
The verdict, as DISCUSS.md item 15. One function goes from Tast to machine
code and answers correctly, so the question is not whether it can be done.
Three findings decide the shape. Layout is already owned -- emit.ml computes
C struct layout for DWARF and is tested against LLVM's own answer -- so the
silent-drift risk item 10 feared most does not arise. The C boundary is the
easy half, because check.ml already rejects aggregates in a declare and the
shim flattens them. And the hard half was not on anyone's list: Flan calling
Flan passes aggregates by value, and LLVM's lowering of a first-class struct
is per-field rather than the C psABI -- { i8, float } comes back in al and
xmm0 where C would pack it into rax, and a %vec return takes a hidden sret
pointer that does not appear in the define line. The internal convention is
an implementation, not a document.
The audit stands on its own: overflow, shifts and evaluation order are
defined; division by zero, INT64_MIN/-1, the float cast, Uninit and
unreachable are not. Uninit is the one that bites, because poison is where
the two backends are supposed to differ.
Unloading: the shadow stack answers the running half and every dev-build
function is on it -- only the slot table is gated, not the frame. It cannot
answer the pointed-into half, which BUILT.md says is the actual reason
nothing is dlclose'd. Escaped function values need a rule the language does
not have.
