================
@@ -1056,6 +1083,25 @@ void CoroCloner::create() {
// Set up the new entry block.
replaceEntryBlock();
+ // Turn symmetric transfers into musttail calls.
+ for (CallInst *ResumeCall : Shape.SymmetricTransfers) {
+ ResumeCall = cast<CallInst>(VMap[ResumeCall]);
+ ResumeCall->setCallingConv(NewF->getCallingConv());
+ if (TTI.supportsTailCallFor(ResumeCall)) {
+ // FIXME: Could we support symmetric transfer effectively without
+ // musttail?
+ ResumeCall->setTailCallKind(CallInst::TCK_MustTail);
+ }
+
+ // Put a 'ret void' after the call, and split any remaining instructions to
----------------
zmodem wrote:
That still sounds like the remark would not target the compiler user, but the
developer of the compiler tool -- and that's not really what optimization
remarks are for.
The more I think about this, the less I like the idea of a remark. A "deleted
instructions after llvm.coro.await.suspend.handle call" remark would be pure
noise for a normal optimization remarks user. Plus we would need to maintain
the code which to emit it, including tests for when it should trigger or not.
I think my patch makes the semantic of llvm.coro.await.suspend.handle clear in
the doc, I think that behavior is compatible with how calls in the IR already
works, and I think existing passes will handle it well. I don't think it needs
special handling.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/89751
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
