akhuang added inline comments.

================
Comment at: clang/lib/CodeGen/CodeGenModule.cpp:3590-3593
+          getTarget().getCXXABI().isMicrosoft() &&
+          llvm::any_of(cast<CXXMethodDecl>(FD)->parameters(), [&](ParmVarDecl 
*P) {
+            return isInAllocaArgument(getCXXABI(), P->getType());
+            })) {
----------------
akhuang wrote:
> rnk wrote:
> > akhuang wrote:
> > > rnk wrote:
> > > > For simplicity, what if we always emitted the call operator for all 
> > > > lambda static invokers into the IR first? So, this logic would then 
> > > > become almost exactly the same as the emitCXXStructor logic above.
> > > > 
> > > > Later, in EmitLambdaStaticInvokeBody, we can detect the inalloca case 
> > > > and start the cloning.
> > > > For simplicity, what if we always emitted the call operator for all 
> > > > lambda static invokers into the IR first? So, this logic would then 
> > > > become almost exactly the same as the emitCXXStructor logic above.
> > > 
> > > Do you know where this should happen? I couldn't really figure out a 
> > > place other than here for emitting the call operator. 
> > > 
> > > If I do the cloning inside the normal EmitLambdaStaticInvokeBody path 
> > > it's a bit annoying because StartFunction/EndFunction get called 
> > > before/after cloning.
> > > Do you know where this should happen? I couldn't really figure out a 
> > > place other than here for emitting the call operator.
> > 
> > Yes, I think you should do that here, just like we do for constructors. If 
> > it's a hack, it's one we already have. The main impact is that we emit the 
> > call operator in the IR first. That may require updating some tests, but 
> > it's nice to do the same thing on all platforms, and we'd need to do it to 
> > handle forwarding varargs lambdas anyway, which are present on all 
> > platforms.
> > 
> > I also think it's OK to delete all the IR from StartFunction after its been 
> > generated, that doesn't seem like a big deal. How does the varargs cloning 
> > logic handle this situation?
> Oh, ok, I see what you mean. 
> 
> I'll try to upload a version with the cloning function inside 
> EmitLambdaStaticInvokeBody. I think there's some stuff in Start/End Function 
> that prevent you from simply deleting the code. (I don't think it's an issue 
> for the varargs cloning because that isn't called within 
> `EmitGlobalFunctionDefinition`. )
Actually, hm, trying to do the function cloning inside 
`EmitLambdaStaticInvokeBody`/`GenerateCode` might not work because 
`FinishFunction` does various things like emit the return statement, which 
won't work if we just cloned the function.


Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D136998/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D136998

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

Reply via email to