__xray_customevent and __xray_typedevent are built-in functions in Clang.
With -fxray-instrument, they are lowered to intrinsics llvm.xray.customevent and
llvm.xray.typedevent, respectively. These intrinsics are then lowered to
TargetOpcode::{PATCHABLE_EVENT_CALL,PATCHABLE_TYPED_EVENT_CALL}. The target is
responsible for generating a code sequence that calls either
__xray_CustomEvent (with 2 arguments) or __xray_TypedEvent (with 3
arguments).
Before patching, the code sequence is prefixed by a branch instruction that
skips the rest of the code sequence. After patching
(compiler-rt/lib/xray/xray_AArch64.cpp), the branch instruction becomes a NOP
and the function call will take effects.
This patch implements the lowering process for
{PATCHABLE_EVENT_CALL,PATCHABLE_TYPED_EVENT_CALL} and implements the runtime.
// Lowering of PATCHABLE_EVENT_CALL .Lxray_sled_N: b #24 stp x0, x1, [sp, #-16]! x0 = reg of op0 x1 = reg of op1 bl __xray_CustomEvent ldrp x0, x1, [sp], #16
As a result, two updated tests in compiler-rt/test/xray/TestCases/Posix/ now
pass on AArch64.
For the AArch64 specific file I think it would be better to say
B . + 24 => nop
nop => B . + 24
As B is the AArch64 instruction that matches 0x14......
Is it worth mentioning why 24 and 36 in this file (2 or 3 parameters). This is mentioned in AArch64AsmPrinter.cpp but that is separate from compiler-rt.