junparser added a comment. In D82314#2109893 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D82314#2109893>, @rsmith wrote:
> In D82314#2109728 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D82314#2109728>, @lxfind wrote: > > > @rsmith Thanks. That's a good point. Do you know if there already exists > > optimization passes in LLVM that attempts to shrink the range of lifetime > > intrinsics? If so, I am curious why that does not help in this case. Or is > > it generally unsafe to move the lifetime intrinsics, and we could only do > > it here with specific context knowledge about coroutines. > > > I don't know for sure, but I would expect someone to have implemented such a > pass already. Moving a lifetime start intrinsic later, past instructions that > can't possibly reference the object in question, seems like it should always > be safe and (presumably) should always be a good thing to do, and similarly > for moving lifetime end markers earlier. It could be that such a pass exists > but it is run too late in the pass pipeline, so the coroutine split pass > doesn't get to take advantage of it. @lxfind, Also lifetime marker of variable are much complex because of the existing of exceptional path(multiple lifetime start & multiple lifetime end) , so it is hard to optimize such cases. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D82314/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D82314 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
