ChuanqiXu added a comment. In D115222#3177269 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D115222#3177269>, @rjmccall wrote:
> Like a lot of the switched-resume lowering, this intrinsic is extremely tied > to C++ semantics. If C++ doesn't actually allow the optimization anymore, > then I completely agree that we should go ahead and remove the intrinsic. If > it's allowed and we just haven't implemented it yet, then okay, it might be > best to remove it, but an unused intrinsic that we're planning to start using > soon-ish isn't really doing any harm. From the feedback from Lewis, this optimization is allowed. Here is the link: http://eel.is/c++draft/class.copy.elision#1.3. I would add it to my TOOD list. But the priority might not be high since I am working on C++20's module recently. So it might be the case that the optimization would start `soon`. So I think it might be better to remove it. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D115222/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D115222 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
