ChuanqiXu added a comment. Only one problem I had for emitting lifetime markers even at O0 is that would action make allocas to be optimized even at O0? If so, I wonder if it confuses programmers since they may find some variables disappear surprisingly. Or there would be no optimization since every function would be marked with option attribute. I am not sure about this.
If I understand this problem correctly, this patch could fix problems for the return value of symmetric transfer and the gro that we discussed in D98638 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D98638>. Then D98638 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D98638> may be unneeded. I prefer the implementation in this patch. ================ Comment at: clang/lib/CodeGen/CGDecl.cpp:1318 /// otherwise llvm::Value *CodeGenFunction::EmitLifetimeStart(uint64_t Size, llvm::Value *Addr) { ---------------- Can we sure frontend would always call this API to emit lifetime start? I mean the frontend may call EmitIntrinsic or create lifetime.start intrinsic directly whether by IRBuilder::CreateXXX or Instrinsic::Create(...). I worry about if this would incur changes out of design. Then if we add check in EmitLifetimeStart, why not we add check in EmitLfietimeEnd? Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D99227/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D99227 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
