ChuanqiXu added a comment. In D98638#2630864 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D98638#2630864>, @lxfind wrote:
> That's a fair point. I agree that we have no guarantee these are the only two > cases. > It does seem to me that coroutine implementation somewhat relies on proper > lifetime markers so that data are being put correctly, which may be the > fundamental problem we are trying to solve. It is hard to prove it. This topic need more discuss and more folks get involved. But it is really valuable. I can't remember how many patches we had to judge whether values should be put on the coroutine frame. I am OK to emit lifetime markers even at O0. But I think you need to ask for other's opinion. In D98638#2630864 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D98638#2630864>, @lxfind wrote: > We probably could, but it would be very very tedious. > During CodeGen, we only have the AST that's calling __builtin_coro_resume, > which we will call Emit as a whole. > So we need to manually match the AST 2 levels down to find the await_suspend > call, get its name, and then walk through the emitted IR to find a call with > the same name, and then find the tmp that's used to store the return value of > the call, and then emit llvm.coro.forcestack. Can't we did as inline comments? ================ Comment at: clang/lib/CodeGen/CGCoroutine.cpp:221 CGF.EmitBlock(RealSuspendBlock); + } else if (ForcestackStart) { + Builder.CreateCall( ---------------- can we rewrite it into: ``` else if (SuspendRet != nullptr && SuspendRet->getType()->isClassType()) { // generate: // llvm.coro.forcestack(SuspendRet) } ``` Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D98638/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D98638 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
