================
@@ -1885,6 +1885,87 @@ void CIRGenModule::setFunctionAttributes(GlobalDecl
globalDecl,
}
}
+void CIRGenModule::setCIRFunctionAttributesForDefinition(
+ const clang::FunctionDecl *decl, cir::FuncOp f) {
+ assert(!cir::MissingFeatures::opFuncUnwindTablesAttr());
+ assert(!cir::MissingFeatures::stackProtector());
+
+ auto existingInlineKind = f.getInlineKind();
+ bool isNoInline =
+ existingInlineKind && *existingInlineKind == cir::InlineKind::NoInline;
+ bool isAlwaysInline = existingInlineKind &&
+ *existingInlineKind == cir::InlineKind::AlwaysInline;
+
+ if (!decl) {
+ assert(!cir::MissingFeatures::hlsl());
+
+ if (!isAlwaysInline &&
+ codeGenOpts.getInlining() == CodeGenOptions::OnlyAlwaysInlining) {
+ // If we don't have a declaration to control inlining, the function isn't
+ // explicitly marked as alwaysinline for semantic reasons, and inlining
is
+ // disabled, mark the function as noinline.
----------------
andykaylor wrote:
```suggestion
// If inlining is disabled and we don't have a declaration to control
// inlining, mark the function as 'noinline' unless it is explicitly
marked
// as 'alwaysinline'.
```
I found the original comment confusing. Do you think this is better? It doesn't
match the order in which the code checks things, but I think it corresponds
better to the actual logic of the situation.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/162866
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
