This changes the shape of the statepoint intrinsic from:
@llvm.experimental.gc.statepoint(anyptr target, i32 # call args, i32 unused, ...call args, i32 # deopt args, ...deopt args, ...gc args)
to:
@llvm.experimental.gc.statepoint(anyptr target, i32 # call args, i32 flags, ...call args, i32 # transition args, ...transition args, i32 # deopt args, ...deopt args, ...gc args)
This extension offers the backend the opportunity to insert (somewhat) arbitrary code to manage the transition from GC-aware code to code that is not GC-aware and back.
In order to support the injection of transition code, this extension wraps the STATEPOINT ISD node generated by the usual lowering lowering with two additional nodes: GC_TRANSITION_START and GC_TRANSITION_END. The transition arguments that were passed passed to the intrinsic (if any) are lowered and provided as operands to these nodes and may be used by the backend during code generation.
Eventually, the lowering of the GC_TRANSITION_{START,END} nodes should be informed by the GC strategy in use for the function containing the intrinsic call; for now, these nodes are instead replaced with no-ops.
This paragraph gets confusing. I think you'd be better off introducing a hypothetical GC, describe briefly how you might add support for such a GC, and then show the resulting code. Just make it clear that such a GC is hypothetical. :)
You might also mention where this is actually used. (i.e. the CLR GC support.)
I'd be tempted to have you guys actually add your strategy so that we can have the actual support conditional on the gc name and just use that for our example.