ahatanak added inline comments.
================ Comment at: lib/CodeGen/CGExpr.cpp:4815 + } + } + ---------------- rjmccall wrote: > Oh! So it's an interesting point that the RHS might be used as the result > expression, which means its use might not really be unique anymore. It > happens to work in some sense for non-trivial C++ class types (when they're > passed indirectly, as under the Itanium ABI) because the temporary outlives > the call; on the other hand, the call is allowed to mutate its argument, and > it's not clear that it's okay to have those mutations be reflected in code > that's using the result of the assignment. Similarly, managed types (like > non-trivial C structs, or ARC pointers) might be consumed by the call; if > we're going to pass them, perhaps we need to copy the value before doing so. > > What do you think? > > I think the technical implication is that what you're doing here shouldn't be > necessary; the OVE arguably should not be unique if its value is used in > multiple places, and that includes being used as a result. I made changes so that OVEs used as the result expression are not marked as unique. I wasn't sure whether treating such OVEs as unique would actually cause problems, but it's probably better to be on the safe side. https://reviews.llvm.org/D39562 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
