lebedev.ri added inline comments.

================
Comment at: llvm/lib/Transforms/Utils/InlineFunction.cpp:1172
+      if (NumInstChecked++ > MaxInstCheckedForThrow ||
+          isGuaranteedToTransferExecutionToSuccessor(&I))
+        return true;
----------------
anna wrote:
> lebedev.ri wrote:
> > anna wrote:
> > > Noticed while adding couple more tests, there are 2 bugs here:
> > > 1. the `isGuaranteedToTransferExecutionToSuccessor` check should be 
> > > inverted
> > > 2.  make_range should be until the return instruction - so we do not want 
> > > `std::prev` on the returnInstruction. what's needed is: 
> > > `make_range(RVal->getIterator(), RInst->getIterator())`
> > > This means that from the callsite until (and excluding) the return 
> > > instruction should be guaranteed to transfer execution to successor - 
> > > only then we can backward propagate the attribute to that callsite.
> > Are you aware of `llvm::isValidAssumeForContext()`?
> > All this (including pitfalls) sound awfully close to that function.
> as stated in a previous comment (https://reviews.llvm.org/D76140#1922292), 
> adding `Assumes` here for simple cases seems like an overkill. It has 
> significant IR churn and it also adds a use for something which can be easily 
> inferred. 
> Consider optimizations that depend on facts such as `hasOneUse` or a limited 
> number of uses. We will now be inhibiting those optimizations. 
While i venomously disagree with the avoidance of the usage of one versatile 
interface
and hope things will change once there's more progress on attributor & assume 
bundles,
in this case, as it can be seen even from the signature of the 
`isValidAssumeForContext()` function,
it implies/forces nothing about using assumes, but only performs a validity 
checking,
similar to the `MayContainThrowingOrExitingCall()`

https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/ca04d0c8fd269978be1c13fe1241172cdfe6a6ea/llvm/lib/Analysis/ValueTracking.cpp#L603

That being said, i haven't reviewed this code so maybe there's some differences 
here
that make that function unapplicable here.



Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D76140/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D76140



_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits

Reply via email to