rnk added a comment.
I guess I'm OK with the approach.
================
Comment at: lib/CodeGen/CodeGenFunction.cpp:1967
@@ +1966,3 @@
+
+void CodeGenFunction::cleanupNakedFunction() {
+ llvm::SmallPtrSet<llvm::Instruction *, 8> InstrsToRemove;
----------------
This isn't the right approach. Look at Function::dropAllReferences and try
modelling this code on that. This does a lot of unnecessary RAUW when we can
just null out all operands and delete all instructions except for the inline
asm CallInst.
================
Comment at: test/CodeGen/attr-naked.c:20
@@ -19,3 +19,3 @@
__attribute((naked)) void t3(int x) {
-// CHECK: define void @t3(i32)
+// CHECK: define void @t3(i32 %x)
// CHECK-NOT: alloca
----------------
unrelated change?
================
Comment at: test/CodeGenCXX/attr-naked.cpp:7
@@ +6,3 @@
+ int __attribute__((naked)) m2() { __asm__ volatile("retq"); }
+};
+
----------------
Can you add a test involving vtable thunks? I'm worried that we will clean up
the thunk for a naked virtual method implementation. The code looks correct
today, but I'd like to defend against that possibility in the future.
================
Comment at: test/CodeGenCXX/attr-naked.cpp:30
@@ +29,3 @@
+// CHECK: define internal i32 @"_ZZ4foo1iP6Class1ENK3$_0clEv"(%class.anon*
%this) [[ATTR1:#[0-9]]]
+// CHECK-NEXT: entry:
+// CHECK-NEXT: call void asm sideeffect "retq
----------------
Won't this require asserts? We don't name BBs in NDEBUG builds.
http://reviews.llvm.org/D15599
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
