rnk added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/test/CodeGen/attr-nomerge.cpp:8
+ [[clang::nomerge]] void f();
+ [[clang::nomerge]] virtual void g();
+ [[clang::nomerge]] static void f1();
----------------
zequanwu wrote:
> rnk wrote:
> > Hm, virtual functions, there's something worth thinking about. In this
> > case, the attribute must appear on the call site if we want it to work as
> > the user expects. I don't see the indirect call site for the virtual call
> > in the IR below. I think it's worth testing for that. Consider taking `A*`
> > and `B*` parameters to defeat any frontend devirtualization optimizations.
> If devirtualization failed, then only statement attribute would work.
Fair enough, that is similar to how `not_tail_called` works. Can you also
update AttrDocs.td to mention the limitation?
================
Comment at: clang/test/CodeGen/attr-nomerge.cpp:17
+
+[[clang::nomerge]] bool bar() {
+ return true;
----------------
zequanwu wrote:
> rnk wrote:
> > I would leave this declaration as it was, so that all the statement
> > attribute test cases you wrote below remain as they were, and the attribute
> > continues to appear at the call site.
> >
> > The `f` declaration below gives you coverage of the free function
> > declaration case.
> I added `[[clang::nomerge]]` to `bar` in order to test that the generated IR
> should attach `nomerge` to call-sites which callee function already has this
> attribute.
Well, from the tests below, it seems like the attribute is *not* present on the
call sites. Is that what you intended?
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D92800/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D92800
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
