compnerd added a comment.
Unfortunate that they have this crazy behavior.
================
Comment at: lib/CodeGen/CGAtomic.cpp:901
@@ -897,1 +900,3 @@
+ PostOp = llvm::Instruction::Add;
+ // Fall through.
case AtomicExpr::AO__c11_atomic_fetch_add:
----------------
I think we should use `[[clang::fallthrough]]` instead. It annotates as well
as the comment, aids the static analyzer, and should be ignored by compilers
that don't support it.
================
Comment at: lib/CodeGen/CGAtomic.cpp:985
@@ -996,1 +984,3 @@
+ assert(UseOptimizedLibcall || !PostOp);
+
----------------
Can you add an explanatory message in the assert? (Yes, thats had to come up
with since its obvious if you are familiar with this path).
================
Comment at: lib/CodeGen/CGAtomic.cpp:998
@@ -1007,1 +997,3 @@
llvm::Value *ResVal = Res.getScalarVal();
+ llvm::Value *LoadVal1 = Args[1].RV.getScalarVal();
+ if (PostOp)
----------------
Am I mistaken, but, we don't need this unless we have an operation to perform?
Cant we sink this into the PostOp condition?
http://reviews.llvm.org/D14385
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
