efriedma added inline comments.
================
Comment at: llvm/lib/Transforms/Scalar/TailRecursionElimination.cpp:130
+ IsNocapture = true;
+ else if (Function *CalledFunction = CB.getCalledFunction()) {
+ if (CalledFunction->getBasicBlockList().size() > 0 &&
----------------
Please don't add code to examine the callee; if we're not deducing nocapture
appropriately, we should fix that elsewhere.
================
Comment at: llvm/lib/Transforms/Scalar/TailRecursionElimination.cpp:335
+ II->getIntrinsicID() == Intrinsic::assume)
+ return true;
+
----------------
What is the new handling for lifetime.end/assume doing?
================
Comment at: llvm/lib/Transforms/Scalar/TailRecursionElimination.cpp:825
+ // The local stack holds all alloca instructions and all byval arguments.
+ AllocaDerivedValueTracker Tracker;
+ for (Argument &Arg : F.args()) {
----------------
Do you have to redo the AllocaDerivedValueTracker analysis? Is it not enough
that the call you're trying to TRE is marked "tail"?
================
Comment at: llvm/lib/Transforms/Scalar/TailRecursionElimination.cpp:852
+
+ // Do not do TRE if exists recursive calls which are not last calls.
+ if (!isTailBlock(CI->getParent()) ||
----------------
I thought we had some tests where we TRE in the presence of recursive calls,
like a simple recursive fibonacci. Am I misunderstanding this?
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D82085/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D82085
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
