Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Handle use of a better calling convention for combined forward/reverse #28

Open
wsmoses opened this issue Nov 9, 2019 · 0 comments
Open
Assignees

Comments

@wsmoses
Copy link
Member

wsmoses commented Nov 9, 2019

There are instances in which a we need a shadow pointer from a function we can create a combined forward/reverse of (See #27). However, right now if that is the case we are conservative and fall back to individual forward/reverse and we should make sure that uses of the inverted pointer are moved to the right location when using the combined variant (and re-enable it in these cases).

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant