ChuanqiXu added a comment. In D115219#3175582 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D115219#3175582>, @rjmccall wrote:
> I agree that you shouldn't call `suspend`, but doesn't `coro.end` have the > behavior of marking the coroutine done? Should we just be calling `coro.end` > on this path? @rjmccall great insight! `coro.end` wouldn't marking the coroutine done previously. But its place is perfect to do so. I have added the codes to mark the coroutine as done for `coro.end` in the unwind path. And I have checked the behavior. The exception happened earlier wouldn't run into the path of coro.end exists. So the behavior is satisfying. The only defect might be that the behavior is C++'s semantic. Although, there might be a problem if there is another language also uses switch-resumed ABI one day. I think the current approach is much better at least it has and would generate less code. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D115219/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D115219 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
