================
@@ -438,18 +445,28 @@ void llvm::PointerMayBeCaptured(const Value *V,
CaptureTracker *Tracker,
};
while (!Worklist.empty()) {
const Use *U = Worklist.pop_back_val();
- switch (DetermineUseCaptureKind(*U, IsDereferenceableOrNull)) {
- case UseCaptureKind::NO_CAPTURE:
+ CaptureInfo CI = DetermineUseCaptureKind(*U, IsDereferenceableOrNull);
+ if (capturesNothing(CI))
continue;
- case UseCaptureKind::MAY_CAPTURE:
- if (Tracker->captured(U))
+ CaptureComponents OtherCC = CI.getOtherComponents();
+ CaptureComponents RetCC = CI.getRetComponents();
+ if (capturesAnything(OtherCC)) {
+ switch (Tracker->captured(U, CI)) {
+ case CaptureTracker::Stop:
return;
- continue;
- case UseCaptureKind::PASSTHROUGH:
- if (!AddUses(U->getUser()))
- return;
- continue;
+ case CaptureTracker::ContinueIgnoringReturn:
+ continue;
+ case CaptureTracker::Continue:
+ // Fall through to passthrough handling, but only if RetCC contains
+ // additional components that OtherCC does not.
----------------
nikic wrote:
This is to avoid wasting time by following values that cannot contribute any
*new* capture information. For call captures, we'll usually have OtherCC ==
RetCC, and there's no point in following the return value in that case, as it
won't contribute anything new. That would be a regression relative to current
CaptureTracking behavior (which doesn't follow call return values).
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/125880
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
