rjmccall added a comment. In D115219#3175660 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D115219#3175660>, @ChuanqiXu wrote:
> 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. Okay. Well, I'm glad it works. I guess I find it a little strange that `coro.end` doesn't already mark the coroutine done. I guess the normal C++ lowering always generates a final suspension before reaching a non-unwind `coro.end`? There are a lot of semantic differences between throwing out of a C++ coroutine and returning out of it that I always find surprising. Something ultimately invalidates the coroutine handle by deallocating the frame, right? When does that happen when throwing out of a coroutine? 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
