yaxunl abandoned this revision. yaxunl added a comment. In D101389#2724757 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D101389#2724757>, @rjmccall wrote:
> In D101389#2724700 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D101389#2724700>, @yaxunl wrote: > >> In D101389#2724636 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D101389#2724636>, @rjmccall >> wrote: >> >>> I think this is intentional; requiring the indirect-result parameter to be >>> in the alloca address space would prevent direct initialization of >>> non-temporary memory, which is an important optimization in C++. >> >> You mean situations like this? https://godbolt.org/z/KnPs6znK8 >> >> Address of a global variable is directly passed as the sret arg to the >> function returning a struct, instead of creating a temporary struct variable >> and passing its address as the sret arg? > > That's one specific case of copy-elision, but there are others, e.g.: > https://godbolt.org/z/boTeMseaM > > I suppose you could disable general copy-elision. But don't you have > aggressive optimizations to strength-reduce generic pointer operations? Thanks for the example. I agree that sret should be in default addr space. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D101389/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D101389 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
